User talk:SlimVirgin/archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 3RR

Hi. My apologies for the 3RR violation. Weyes already beat me with the clue stick — I didn't realize that 3RR is only excepted for cases of "simple vandalism", rather than POV conflicts, but of course I see my error now. I understand how to handle this kind of problem in the future, and won't violate 3RR again. Cheers. Neilc 05:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polytechnic University of New York

Hi, SlimVirgin. Er...maybe you can help me figure this out. The goatse is this image: "Image:Polysoriginalbuilding.jpg". I don't know how to delete or revert it, I haven't delt with images before. func(talk) 06:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Got it. Func, even if you're upset, try to refrain from edit summaries that includes (fucking idiots), it dosen't look good on the revision history, and also, you don't wanna clue them in that they upset you. By the way, this was the first image I ever deleted. It was easy, I just clicked on delete image and it was gone, never to return. Goodbye TG, damm that is just fuckin horrid! Anyway, I think you need tea. :) El_C 06:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So how come I could only see a building? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Because I retrieved the original image and added it back to the article. /bows :) El_C 06:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, before you did that, after Func reverted, I could still only see the building. There had been a goatse image a few days ago, but someone else deleted it and uploaded the building again, so I could only see the building. Yet you and Func saw an anal image. So I was either suppressing the anal image, or you and Func were projecting it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
[edit conflict] SlimVirgin, if this is a "regular" page of yours, the original image might still have been in your browser's cache? Thanks, El_C, and I should have known better about the edit summary, sorry. :) func(talk) 07:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it was your cache, Slim. No problem, Func. Happens. Don't let them get to ya. Tea! :) El_C 07:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:SteveHassan.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.

[edit] All your base

No, it's not mine, it is a friend though. I guess it's not kosher to ask someone else to look at something and make an edit - I won't do it again! BTW I have no idea who Intrigue is. Guttlekraw 04:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up SlimVirgin, to be fair, User:Guttlekraw2, User:Guttlekraw3 have not been used to edit articles, only to talk to a user when I was having account difficulties. User:All your base are belong to us is not me, but a friend. Is there some policy on people who know each other editing articles that each other are editing? How is that enforced? I have no idea who User:Intrigue is, but the accusation that anyone who agrees with me is a sockpuppet is a little sinister. Re the 3RR issue, I am constantly being accused of this by Viriditas, who basically objects to any changes being made to the version of any article that he preffers. I have made every effort to constructively edit the thing with him - I hope that a look over the recent exchanges there will convince you that I am trying to be constructive. It's a tough job with him. I have not knowingly broken any policies, as I am sure a close investigation will show. Thanks for your help, Guttlekraw 08:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will do - if you're interested in the backstory to this, maybe you could take a look at the comments on Talk:Drug abuse#Two medical sections side by side for discussion, unless doing so would make you look like my sockpuppet, that is! ;) I feel like some involvement from others would improve the quality of the dialogue. Guttlekraw 08:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I am familiar with these policies, and believe that I am in compliance with them, despite accusations. I don't think mediation is necessary at this stage, but I do think some other input is needed. The issue is that every time I make any change or suggestion it is jumped on as a 'revert' of the canon version according to you know who. So I look like I am making reversions whenever I am trying to suggest anything different to the 'preffered' version. A couple of other eyes on this should make it easier, since it would be less of a back and forward, and more of a team effort, perhaps reducing the sense of 'my version' or 'his version'. Any help you could give in recruiting volunteers would be gratefully received. Guttlekraw 08:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Cooley.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cooley.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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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. I've marked it ((fuus)) for now. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 11:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VonErck.jpg

If Image:VonErck.jpg is not on your watchlist then I suggest that you add it. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:59, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is on mine now, but why do you suggest Slim to add it, Will. Has the image been changed due to vandalism? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, but the image description should be consistent with what is in the article. Check the history and you'll see what I mean. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10k

10,000! Congratulations. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sure, Slim

You'll find it here—I can't believe I spent hours writing this up, but if it can come in useful now, so much the better. Check out the Worldtraveller link. Best, Bishonen | talk 01:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] /temp?

That was a quick response.

To me, yes, I would feel hurt if I am treated like an "odd-one out" sort of business. That is the "spiritual emotional factor" that I'm trying to refer to. Prior to your reference of stating that there are other users (like you) who edit in their own work space, I have never seen such a case, only those in the /temp cases, the first of whom is User:Nichalp, who had put up messages on his /temp. My edits on /temp pages are merely following his examples.

There are also people out there using /temp pages--see talk:Ottoman Empire/Temp. Now there are also people who edit in their name space, one of whom is you, yes, but can you please point out where /temp are rejected for drafts? Or is it a person'c choice?

Let me get straight to the point: editing in your own work space means that people are not allowed to touch your edits, but those in the /temp are allow to do so. What I want, is to have a /temp version.

The purpose of this objective is to allow people do ammendments on my draft, for a /temp page would have a comparatively higher visibility than those in your own work space. I want to let people do ammednments, but at the same time discourage major edits for a period of time to avoid confusion.

Also, could you unprotect the Tsushima Islands? More information on [1]. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. User:Mr Tan

Thanks. Can you please show me the policy page (if any) stating that /temp are prohibited in wikipedia? Otherwise, if there is no policy or semi-policy concerning this issue, I feel that it seems a bit unfair to my decision, witnessing in the case of the Ottoman empire has a /temp page. Yes, the /draft is an alternative, but it seems pretty confusing for they have given so many disputed versions.

I would also like to enquire if after editing the draft article, can you move the page independently into the main article itself, not amounting to calling other users to review on your work? (I really need help on this)

Tan 13:22, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

I have a plan; you may unprotect Wee Kim Wee/temp, and I will not touch it. I will also abstain from moving User:Mr Tan/Wee Kim Wee, while I shall try to find time to edit then and there. When you are ready, I will be happy to receive your comments.

Tan 13:37, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socking it to them (or not)

Hi Slim. I see you've been sticking the socky thing on the page of User:Enviroknot.

I have no particular opinion about this user. I haven't examined many of his edits; if I had, I might have a strong opinion. He is accused of being a sock of one or two other users, and the obnoxiousness of one or both of them is very obvious, even to me.

I commented on the application of the sock template in a series of three messages to Mel here. Mel replied very reasonably to the first of the three. He hasn't replied to the second or third. Of course, he is under no obligation to reply to either. Still -- and despite my very high regard for Mel's judgement elsewhere -- I am surprised by what strikes me as an imbalance between (a) his (and your) eagerness to apply the template, and (b) the apparent unconcern about linking to supporting evidence that's at all convincing.

As Mel pointed out, there neither is nor should be a requirement for proof in such allegations. But not to require proof is not the same as being satisfied with very feeble evidence.

Perhaps there is a lot more evidence, and it simply doesn't appear in the page that's linked to, or perhaps it's there and in that page, but inconspicuous. You may wish to add to or highlight it.

So is E Knot a sock? Of course I don't know. I also can't read the minds of people who control sockpuppets. But I tentatively guess that if he were a sock, the "real" user would let him go (aside from a few edits to make the disappearance less obvious) and create a replacement -- whereas if I were accused of being a sock, I might react rather as E Knot has done (including, of course, irritation and occasional bad language).

Or perhaps it's just a hall of mirrors we're in and (for example) I too am merely a sock. Somewhere in the reams of "talk" about the article on that nonentity "Sollog", you'll find the accusation that I'm Wyss, and perhaps also MarkSweep to boot. I found that pretty hilarious -- but had the accusations come repeatedly, and from persons who hadn't obviously lost their marbles, I wouldn't have. -- Hoary 10:41, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC) [PS Mel has replied now. Hoary 13:00, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)]

The sockpuppetry has been determined at a WP:RFAr against ElKabong et all (including KaintheScion and Enviroknot). If you wish to see specific links, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zscout, as far as I can see that page says nothing. I think you're referring instead to RfAr/KaintheScion et al./Evidence. Again, this adduces only the flimsiest of evidence for the claim that E Knot is a sock. I don't deny that there is more evidence where that comes from, but I haven't yet seen it. -- Hoary 03:45, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
The evidence is being gathered as I speak. Though my main beef with E Knot's handler was over personal attacks, the sock puppetry become one of the main disputes against the handler of E Knot. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I'll return to the RfAr page once in a while to see how things are coming along. (Having nothing to say, I don't plan to contribute.) -- Hoary 05:43, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Yuber, please reread, noting that I wrote "He is accused of being a sock of one or two other users . . . ". Of, not by. -- Hoary 03:39, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Sorry, one preposition can make a huge difference >_>.Yuber(talk) 03:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

Predicatbly, as soon as you'd acceded to his request to unprotect this article because there were no more disputes (!), Mr Tan leapt in and made a series of edits, most of which were exactly the things that the debate had been about in the first place. Could you re-protect again? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This Mel Etitis is really confusing me. When the page was in protection, he leapt out of the discussion half way. Now when everything is back to normal, I do not understand what tricks he is playing on me. All my information; is done by requests from the talk page, correcting wikilinks and adding the economy section with information from [2]. I don't see why he reverted just like this; and his behaviour really makes it very hard to cooperate and understand his motives.

Continue protecting the page until Mel Etitis leap out of the discussion again; or until the dispute is over. See Talk:Tsushima Islands for more information.

Tan 23:19, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

I think that you may unblock the page; for the convinence of other users, for User:Mel Etitis seems to have simmered down, therefore I assume that he agrees on what I says. Please review Talk:Tsushima Islands for more information. Your reply will be greatly appreciated.

Tan 02:50, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

???? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do not revert first, please. Mel Etitis seems to be getting more paranoid day by day, so I have to sort him out first.

If you can, please come at 16:00 (UTC) to review on the case. Until then, I will have to wait for his reply before going into the appropriate actions.

Tan 11:15, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator Mustafaa is a Wiki Terrorist

I see that you have already discussed the 3RR policy with Yuber. This person has found a way around the 3RR policy by bringing in Administrator Mustafaa.

Regarding the page and edits to Islamic Terrorism, Administrator Mustafaa acts as the police to this page to ensure that his biased POV is inserted. He was called in by Yuber to revert my edit, which was balanced, an improvement, and entirely without a POV (as are all my edits). They worked to team up to ensure that only their biased POV is inserted. Mustafaa then blocked me, in the process breaking many Wiki policies. Basically Mustafaa ‘s reactionary vandalism and his act of blocking me was an act of Wiki terrorisim.

Administrator Mustafaa broke many of Wiki policies:

1. Abuse of Administratorship: Most important is that Mustafaa has an obvious POV and abuses his Administratorship to ensure that his POV is inserted into his favorite articles.

2. Edit Abuse: Mustafaa (and Yuber) made a reactionary rv revert of the entire article instead of simply making one simple correction, the only correction that they disagreed with.

3. Edit Abuse: Unlike what they stated, there has been no previous discussion of this issue. The only previous discussion concerned their own sensitivity to the term. The term “Islamic Terrorism” is the term used by the West and it is the term being described. I provided a source (and there would be tens of thousands of sources, because this is the proper term in the West. I accurately described the dispute that some Muslims have over a term used in the West.

4. Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

5. Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

6. Violating blocking Policy: the 3RR policy is not to be used to deal with vandalism as mine was of Mustafaa and Yuber vandalism.

7. Violating blocking Policy: Mustafaa made no warnings, he just wanted to protect his POV.

I believe that I have made significant contributions to Wiki and I very greatly object to 2 people teaming up to block me out of the system so that they can insert their POV.

These people are doing a real disservice to Wiki, and I can think of no worse vandalism than they have done:

I think Administrators like Mustafaa are dangerous for Wiki, especially when they are so willing to violate Wiki policy to insert their POV.

So, I would appreciate any information and assistance you can provide to Noitall. Thank you.

--Noitall 03:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

This user clearly violated the 3RR (here) and after coming back from the block he immediately moved "Islamist terrorism" to "Islamic terrorism" without even saying why on the talk page.Yuber(talk) 04:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have provided extensive detail as to my edit. Yuber has provided NO response in return except to revert. There has been NO discussion or rebuttal of the argument that I made. Yuber has yet to address even 1 of my arguments. And the editor has not addressed even 1 of the violations that he continues to make (see list above, where he teamed with Mustaffa.

--Noitall 04:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


Referring to someone called Mustafaa as a "terrorist", while amusingly hyperbolic, seems rather Islamophobic. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Any serious editor who knows Mustafaa would reject that slander outright. El_C 12:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
El_C is, of course, wrong on all accounts that he is putting up here. It would be libel were it not true. The editor refuses to address the many Administrator Abuses listed here and elsewhere. --Noitall 13:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

And, by the way, it is true that I should have apologized to the Administrators from whom I asked for assistance, and bringing them into this problem. But given the issue, I thought you might be interested and be willing to provide assistance. --Noitall 13:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Please check!

[edit] Yuber's POV pushing

In Al Qunaytirah. I do not have the time to npov every edit he inserts. Today, he is having a revert war with me over the word occupied. I told him it is not an npov word. I need a third opinion on this.

Guy Montag 06:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] I've petitioned for arbitration against Yuber

[3]

I hope you can contribute to to the arbitration by providing the long history of his inability to cooperate.

Guy Montag 07:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Ramsgate Harbour.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ramsgate Harbour.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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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.Nv8200p 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unlock suicide bombing

Could you please unlock the page? It appears that all discussion on the subject has ended.

Guy Montag 08:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another one

As we've both seen in the past, autobiography (vanity or sycophancy) on the part of editors can lead to, er, sticky situations. My 'Wikisense' tingles when I look over the contributions of 68.10.35.153/Baxter2 that seem to express the point of view of William White (agitator). The subject has a long history on the Internet (first website at age 13, about 13 years ago), including accusations of sock-puppetry [4] and self-promotion (even here [5]). This is an editing situation that deserves careful watching. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

If it's not one thing is another. Thanks for your quick action on the LaRouche edits. After two ArbCom decisions I believe it is appropriate to suspend the assumption of good faith in this narrow field. It's funny, these guys are all alike - they assume that anyone who tries to edit an article for POV is a dedicated anti-them activist. HK kept saying that if he were banned the LaRouche articles would be filled in an ongoing stream of fresh lies (requiring his continual presence to balance). In fact, there have been few revisions since he's left and we moved in the sandbox version that we'd created (and invited him to join) while the last ArbCom decision was still pending. Their egotism makes them assume that people care enough to plot against them. (Why else would LaRouche's economic theories have been ignored?) On the White article, I asked Sam Spade to look it over. I hope that he can help bring it into general Wikipedia form more easily than some editors (like me) who come from a more different POV. There is apparently a long drama in the National Alliance circles involving these characters and this series of edits may be a form of axe-grinding. I believe that now one of the other participants/subjects is also contributing. I'm an optimist but I fear this is going to be another of those fascist/anarchist POV storms. Whew. Anyway, I'm sure that editing sessions at the old 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica went much like this. "Stop pushing your Suffragette POV, Miss!" Thanks for your contributions. -Willmcw 06:11, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your necessarily bold editing. -Willmcw 06:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Also, White mentioned this on his webpage, so all the anti-Bill White nutballs appear to be congregating. -Baxter3 00:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See? Didn't I tell you? It's all about them. It's a cliche, but I truly am laughing out loud. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:13, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
So it really is a conspiracy after all. [6] [7] -Willmcw 09:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thanks for your vote of confidence on my recent successful RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William White (agitator)

SlimVirgin engages in politically motivated page vandalism, and appears to make a habit of it. Also engages in abuse of Wikipedia rules to enforce heavy POV editing of articles. See her "edits" to William White (agitator). 68.10.35.153 00:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) — posted by User:Baxter3, who is also William White, the subject of the piece

[edit] Steven Hassan page

Hi SlimVirgin, I'm curious as to why you reverted *everything* I added to the Steven Hassan page? I put a fair amount of work into it, and I didn't think I was adding anything excessively biased or destructive. Petrus

Thanks, Slim. I noticed your own changes to Steve's page...they look pretty cool. I definitely need to read more about creating good category headings in particular. I will admit that maintaining the old NPOV on Steve was somewhat difficult, as I am a huge fan of his work. ;) I need to work on that a bit. Petrus (talk) 09:39, 8 Jun 2005

[edit] William White

Baxter3 has requested mediation with you on the William White (agitator) article. Could you please tell me your side of the story, either on my talk or by mail? He seems especially angry about how you removed sources you asked him to provide. Could you expand on that? He's already pretty frustrated, so I'd urge you to accept mediation, in hopes of coming to some agreement in this to avoid further escalation. Mgm|(talk) 20:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Rat.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. (unsigned by Nv8200p (talk · contributions)

[edit] The old story

Carelessness, inattention, and lack of experience — at least the consequences only lasted twenty-four hours, not nine months. (As someone who's only ever blocked six people for 3RR violations, I was amused to see violet/riga's opinion that I did a lot of it; but then, as Yuber's sockpuppet, I would say that wouldn't I?) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sockpuppet speaks! El_C 08:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You often see this, El C: the sockpuppets having conversations with themselves on talk pages, or referring to themselves in the third person. They don't realize we've seen it all before. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I should have suspected something. That they talk alike, walk alike, and dress alike (probably) should have led me on. El_C 08:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should the block be indefinite or infinite, and which one do you fancy keeping? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I always go with infinite, without exception. It's just so fun to type! El_C 08:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you noticed that "Yuber" and "Mel Etitis" backwards are both gibberish? Coincidence? I think not. --User:A Friend 11:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good catch, Mr./Mz. User A. Friend — the evidence continues to mount. El_C 11:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Numerical value of letters - Yuber = 71, Mel Etitis = 112. 7+1 = 8; 1+1+2 = 4. Mel Etitis is 1/2 of Yuber. QED, sockpuppet. Guettarda 19:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Numerology and Quantum electrodynamics = exhaustive evidence. El_C 21:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excellent work, Guettarda. I hope Mr Tan is taking note. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

It seems that Mel Etitis has nothing more to say or ask concerning my edits, so I do not see why that the article should remain blocked, and I'm asking for an unprotection.

Also, please do not block the article again under Mel's direction just because he thinks that he do not like the edits. Let him discuss or ask me if he has any doubts, but I do not see why he should block it after all, and he has a tendency to have a mysterious (sometimes hostile) element in his discussions at bay.

Mr Tan 10:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan has adopted a new approach. After everyone has stated their objections to his edits (often many times), he proposes them again, and if no-one responds immediately (sometimes within a couple of hours), he posts a message saying that he now assumes that there's agreement and that he can make his edits unopposed. This is another example of that approach. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


That is the past matter, and I have turned over a new leaf, or at least I try. Did I do that in Lee Kuan Yew? And also, you have not answered my proposals for days, not a day. I would like to seek your co-operation in quick responses, but please forgive me for my impatience. However, your attitude is very suggestive, and I have often seen that you have a tendency either to deviate off from the mainstream discussion, or ignore the entire discussion in mid-way, so not responding to my questions for just a couple of hours (within your time span on the Internet) make me develop this negative attitude in response to yours. In addition, you have a habit of reverting my edits after waiting for your response (usually in vain).

Mr Tan 11:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's not only a Minister, he's a Minister Mentor! WAU! El_C 11:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And concerning the Wee Kim Wee/temp, I would like to bring the matter to your attention that you have yet to give me a response whether there is a policy concerning that /temp are not allowed. However, I have seen that working draft articles in your own namespace can be found in one of the guidelines. Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles

Mr Tan 11:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really hope that you can drop me a reply on my talk page concerning the issues stated above, for I need to get things working. Thanks!

Mr Tan 13:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hi Weyes, I see you're deleting lots of external links from articles. While you're right that articles shouldn't consist of lists of links, the ones you're deleting seem quite useful, and the lists aren't that long. Also, please note that Wikipedia:External links is just a guideline, not policy. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think some more community input might help here, I've taken it to The village pump; hope you'll join in the discussion there. --W(t) 15:03, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

[edit] Perverted-Justice.com

Aside from a few run-by fruitings, the PJ article has calmed down a LOT, and it looks SO much better -- I attribute that to your fine work! So, from me to you, a big Image:WikiThanks.png WikiThanks! · Katefan0(scribble) 17:24, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank You to protect the Sega Dreamcast article. --Mateusc 22:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR and the Sega Dreamcast

I would like to clarify about and 3RR act and nomination that happens today. Since I initiate to revert User:24.125.136.245 and Marvelvsdc image changes, I was look to keep the discussion, fight against that crazy reverts (because I propose the image first - the old image are forgotten and out of the discussion). This is happening in last 2 weeks. Today, K1Bond007 decided to denounce my reversions because the discussion about image changes it transformed in disrespect and personal attacks.

My proposal of image is compatible with the philosophy of the Wikipedia: provide information, showing details as the Windows CE logo. It's only this. Sincerely, I don't see reasons to change the Wikipedia into a magazine with fair use and redundant images as considered for the user K1Bond007.

I'm thankful for the consideration and will appreciate comments.

Sincerely, --Mateusc 01:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Read you loud and clear. Will not revert again until appropriate time. Guy Montag 21:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber1

When you deal with Yuber on a daily basis like I and other editors have, you realize the man is a bad faith editor. It's no longer about civil discussion, it's making sure that he doesn't ruin articles with his pov. I'd gladly deal with him the way wikipedia is meant to deal with good faith editors, but these options are futile as he ignores them. Please see the evidence in arbitration to understand what I mean. Thank you, Guy Montag 09:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for your statement. So thanks.

Guy Montag 00:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber is now vandalizing, and I don't use this lightly, he is vandalizing article Qana Incident by reverting to a previous article that is a ugly little POV stub, to prove a point. All the sources in there are cited, instead of discussing them, he is revert vandalizing them because he doesn't like the information there. Please check it out and block him from editing.

Yuber is continuing his revert warring and pov pushing in Quneitra. Your suggestions seem to have been ignored by Yuber. I suggest you lock that page because he doesn't engage in actual dialogue without other options being blocked to him. Also, check out terrorism. There is an edit war there and Yuber has a large hand in it. I suggest that it be locked too.

Guy Montag 05:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 00:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

God Bless you for you quick response.

Guy Montag 00:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Always nice to be able to distinguish civility from tripe. El_C 09:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 103

Are you attempting to get this article up to FA quality? As a relative of two of the victims (on the ground, lived in Sherwood Crescent), I'd definately support a nomination. --Kiand 12:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism and "Lone Wolf" attackers

Hi Slim. You've been involved in the debate at Independent terrorist actor before, so I thought I'd ask you to add your opinion on an issue currently at Terrorism. I've put it up for RfC as well. Essentially several editors, including me, think the level of detail provided on "Lone Wolf" attackers is inappropriate for the article, but others feel that more detail needs to be added. Well, to be frank, according to some editors huge amounts of information "needed" to be included about Baruch Goldstein but none was needed for any of the other events listed on that page. Eventually, when that started looking too obviously like the POV pushing it was, information was added about a couple of other mass murderers to make the POV pushing less obvious. In any event, the issues I have are with 1) appropriate level of information for the article, 2) similar treatement for all attacks listed in the article, and 3) WP:NOR; just who is designating these guys as "lone wolf" terrorists anyway? Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your well thought out comments, as always, though they seem to have generated little substantive response (other than the inevitable revert with insulting edit comment). Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2RR?

I emailed you regarding my suspension, and I got NO RESPONSE. I did not revert more than three times in a 24 hour period. Please be more careful next time. Eyeon 17:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wp600 not admins

Hi - I added a disclaimer on User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins. Reading between the lines (well, actually, reading on the lines) I gather you're having troubles with one of the people on this list. I don't know what your general experience is, but I hope you haven't concluded most high volume editors are intransigent. You haven't re-commented on the talk page, and I see you've been busy, but just wanted to let know about the disclaimer. I hope this helps to address your concerns. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I updated the disclaimer with most of your suggestions. Any particular reason nuisance editors aren't warned and then perhaps banned outright? Seems like there's a pretty clear difference between making lots of minor, but productive, changes vs. do/undo repeats to make the edit counter go faster. Thanks again. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PA 103

Capital-C for constabulary because its the force's title. Sellafield, because everyone is familiar with that name.

I have talked about this concerning the response of Lockerbie: The Scottish Office-Prime Minister's thoughts on the tenth anniversary of the bombing, as read out by Donald Dewar, Scottish Secretary. It has shown how people around the world have grown proud of the people of Lockerbie on how they responded to the disaster. SNIyer12(talk)

How come you haven't talked about the article I just sent about the praise by the government to the people of Lockerbie for their response? I would like to know. SNIyer12(talk), 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yuber and Talk:Jihad

Yuber is up to four reverts - MAJOR reverts destroying the comments of someone else - at Talk:Jihad. User:Weyes seems to be ardently assisting. Yuber is also unsurprisingly guilty of 3RR violation on Jihad itself. This has caused User:Inter to freeze Jihad and call for comments. Yuber has been serially reverting said comments. Any assistance you can give would be greatly appreciated. Yuber is out of control. Unsigned by 195.168.3.83 (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't take this guy seriously. He is one of Enviroknot's many anon ip's. Check the history and you will see he is clearly vandalizing the talk page and many users have reverted him.Yuber(talk) 22:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Make that ELEVEN now... Nope, TWELVE... THIRTEEN

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for blocking the troll User:Eyeon and his sockpuppets. I appreciate your prompt action. Samboy 23:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber

I see he's been busy while I was gone. I'm sort of sorry you got stuck in the middle of it but since you appointed yourself his guardian, it does fall to you.

I just want you to know from my mouth, I have no connection to any of the anonymous editors who stood up to him today.Enviroknot 00:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enviroknot and his anon IPs

These anon users are exactly the issue we are facing in the Jihad article. First of all, I think you should know that this barrage of anonymous IPs are definitely all environknot, a known sockpuppet that has been banned from Wikipedia. This is evident by the exact same stuff that they add in, the exact same comments that they make and the exact same tactics that they use to vandalize the talk page. Secondly, you can clearly see by what he wants to add in to the article (the bolded text in the anon message found in archive 4 of the talk page) that he has no good intentions for this article but rather wants to vandalize and add anti-Islamic POV. He has the reasoning that all muslims are 'islamists' and that anyone who tries to stop his anti-Islamic vandalist POV is an "Islamist" and is "whitewashing" this article.

He wants to remove all factual information from the article and say that any muslims and non-muslims who have been arguing against him are vandals. Surely you see the issue now. He is perhaps the worst editor of wikipedia, he has a long history on both the article page and the talk page of making personal attacks against people (e.g. cssloat and BrandonYusuf) and of vandalizing the article to make it seem that no muslims are tolerant and that muslims are evil people who have done nothing than kill people forever. This is as RACIST and anti-Islamic as it gets and surely you can see that now when he considers generally anything related to Islam is 'barbaric' or 'brutal'.

He seems to hate when users argue against him on the talk page and does not realize that it is against the rules to delete/edit other people's messages on the TALK pages. He has been the perpetrator when it comes to the talk page. HE WANTS NOTHING MORE THAN TO INSERT ANTI-ISLAMIC POV commonly found in western media that makes it look like Jihad is nothing more than 'islamist terrorism'. He has no factual material and his material does not belong to this article as this is about Jihad which is a large Islamic topic and probably the most misunderstood by people. All the other editors are at consensus to have him banned from this page. Hopefully you will take the appropriate measures to get this chain of enviroknot anon IPs banned so that we may get back to business and resolve any disputes productively. Thank you for your help.--Anonymous editor 01:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Image:4kitties.jpg
No, not yet. El_C 09:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I had nothing to do with writing what you archived.
I would also like to point out what a frothing, raving rant that was. His claims that "all the other editors are at consensus" seem to be groundless and baseless, of course. I've come to expect this behavior from Yuber's clones.Enviroknot 02:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep denying the truth you have shown your true colours in other Islam-related articles. You are a proven sockpuppet and yet you still deny it. --Anonymous editor 02:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

As a former Muslim woman I want to advise you to disregard anything this Islamist fuck "Anonymous" says. One of my good friends died in that fire, and this mysogynistic devotee of Mohammed (may Piss be upon him) keeps trying to deny that it happened.
He can go rot in hell. The religion established by the false prophet needs to be exposed for what it is and die, the sooner the better for the sake of all the women in the world.

There you go again. SlimVirgin, I think that now it is clearly evident that he is making personal attacks again and I request that u take all appropriate measures against him. He seems to have a problem with my conversion to Islam too. here is his talk page concerning this [8] --Anonymous editor 03:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am not Enviroknot but I support anyone who will oppose lying Islamist fucks who try to whitewash Islam's crimes against women, especially weak-minded fools like you.

Pathetic. Absolutely another low for you. You are indeed enviroknot and evidence has been presented.--Anonymous editor 03:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're just another mysogynistic Islamist. Grow a brain and stop dreaming of the 72 virgins, you're not getting any of them. And I hope no woman is stupid enough to fall in with you either.

Actually for your information, I married a christian woman who too converted to Islam. I am sorry to see you are finding offence to this.

I feel immensely sorry for her and hope she comes to her senses soon.
She already came to her senses when she converted. She feels sorry for misguided people like you too.
Image:Kitty wee.gif
Weee! El_C 09:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(The preceding was an edit by 64.229.203.159, likely "Anonymous editor" evading a block)Enviroknot 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ofcourse it was an edit by me. Obviously I am going to respond. Unlike you who also uses sockpuppets, I only use anon IPs in times where I have no other choice.
Unfortunately for you, not only do I not use anonymous IP's, I don't do sockpuppets either. But I will still stand against you. All that is required for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, after all.Enviroknot 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toropov and Anonymous Editor: Whitewashers for Murderers

Why do Toropov and Anonymous Editor keep whitewashing the murders committed by Islamic fundamentalists? Why do Toropov and Anonymous Editor keep inserting their biased, Islamic-centric POV into the Jihad article? Note that I don't think that Sloat is biased or a whitewasher in the way Toropov and Anonymous Editor are. Sloat seems reasonable and open-minded.

I haven't made any changes to the lengthy history of pre-contemporary Jihad. What I have done is add very relevant points about Al Qaeda (which called for Jihad against "Jews and Crusaders" as far back as 1998, and which subsequently has supported, inspired, and committed murders of thousands of innocent civilians), Hezbollah, the many terror groups that use the name Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas. How on earth can any unbiased and reasonable person say that a discussion of Jihad is complete and relevant if it does not make at least some reference to these groups? I did not make any changes to the article that said most Muslims support these murderers who call for Jihad and often include Jihad in their names. The reason I did not make such a change is that I do not believe that most Muslims support these murderers. Nonetheless, groups that murder in the name of Jihad are not isolated, they are not small, and they have wide followings (even though their followings may be only a minority of the Muslim population).

The article includes myths about "Liberal Muslims". Read the Wiki about Liberal Movements Within Islam. A fluff piece. It is unable to cite a single example of a "Liberal Muslim" party that is in power in any country on Earth. It is unable to cite a single example of a Muslim country whose leadership consists of "Liberal Muslims". The only examples of specific Liberal Muslims that the article cites are three non-prominent groups in North America. However, in the Jihad article there are ridiculous references to what "Liberal Muslims" think about Jihad, yet there is no evidence provided that these "Liberal Muslims" are sizable groups. Indeed, there is no specific evidence provided in the Jihad article about who these "Liberal Muslims" are. Consider the following fluff from the Jihad article:

"Among followers of liberal movements within Islam, however, the context of these late verses is that of a specific "war in progress" and not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful. These liberal Muslims have tended to promote an understanding of jihad that rejects or minimizes the identification of jihad with armed struggle, choosing instead to emphasize principles of non-violence."

What a joke. Some unnamed "liberal Muslims have tended to promote an understanding of jihad that rejects . . . the identification of jihad with armed struggle", yet there are no citations of who these people are or any evidence that they have wide followings.

--PeterChehabi 03:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could the pro- and anti-Islam editors please take their dispute somewhere else? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
You're the self-appointed protector of that Islamist fuck Yuber. If you enforce the 3RR against him I'll leave it be. ....posted at 04:54, 2005 Jun 14 by a clearly very excited 212.202.51.98

Dang (how?!), I wanted my image spam to cut through the sections, but the format of this talk page is very enigmatic, and yellow! :( El_C 09:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And it's getting very wide again. Thanks for sending the four kittens of the Apocalypse. I could use them at you-know-where, where I'm now not even allowed to archive. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I await the debate of whether we should measure the four kittens' destructive motion in kt. or C. ;p El_C 11:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyeon

Although I agree your block of User:Eyeon for a 3RR is correct, I received a mail from him asking why he was blocked for reverting censorship (along with, he claims, two others who agree with him) on the Feces article.. He asks me how he can defend himself against you. Can you shed some light on the subject? Inter\Echo 16:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at your block, I see you mention sockpuppets, so obviously what he refers to as "people who agree with him" do you perceive as sockpuppets. I'm just checking out his claims and want both sides of the story. Inter\Echo 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] How much more?

Hi, Yet again this user is blackening our names (including yours). I think the time has now come for this number to be, if not permanently, banned, then at least for a long time. I have made a reply here [9]; but this user generally as you know) deletes anything detrimental to their own image as soon as possible.

Regards. Giano | talk 16:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

Seeing Giano's post above, I thought I'd just link you to my own message to him here—not that it's of much interest, but the incident taught me not to bother with any humanitarian impulses re this user: I get them, because I've always thought he seems unhappy, but, well, they're not any use. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am 103

Hi Slim, can I ask you to outline your objections to metric units on the Talk page under the RfC header? I think it would really help if I could cleary understand your position. Dan100 18:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fidel Castro

Hey, thanks for warning me. I would like to point out that the article was fine and being discussed in a civil manner after Grace Note left and before she came back, now the same revert war as before is going on. All attempts at mediation by User:SqueakBox are constantly reverted, as is the content agreed upon in the discussion page. I would like the page to be locked (sigh, yet again) so that any edits have to be thoroughly discussed, as these people just kinda don't care about other people's contributions without giving solid fact for this. Kapil 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And if you're not an admin I just made an ass of myself and am sorry :P Kapil 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's just the thing, the revertions being made are of removing a NPOV tag, which I placed and explained the reasons for in the talk page (even quoting the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). I have no idea whether what they're saying is correct (that the reasons given are "just my opinion") or if I'm right, but based on their demeanor I just don't believe them therefore I keep reverting. Do you think it's just my opinion and I should back down? Kapil 06:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note has continuously attacked me. Not only that, she has stated that: I'll be referring to you as a "rightist troll" until the day you are banned, Kapil, because that is without doubt what you are, and I'll refer to your reincarnation as one as soon as you come back.. This is an inexcusable breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Is this good reason to suggest that she be banned temporarily? Kapil 06:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 103

If you want to make it a featured article, please remember that the excellence the featured article process is looking for includes excellence in the Wiki process. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autobiography (album) and the featured article removal request for History of Germany as examples of what happens when a user seeks to personally dominate an article. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you summarize for me in two sentences or less today's metric (and lack thereof!) additions to the talk page? Thanks! Yours, El_C 08:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Gay phone company

I.mp3, II.mp3, III.mp3 Wee! (profanity and disturbing content!) El_C 11:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of Suicide bombing

I was not really a participant in the previous edit war that caused this page to be protected. I think we have had a chance to talk things out on the talk page, and while I certainly do not guarantee agreement among all parties, I think we have the different POVs and sources cited. I would appreciate the opportunity to edit this article. Thank you.

--Noitall 13:42, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

We don't have a solution yet, and Yuber hasn't even gotten involved with you yet. Yuber has been the most persistent advocate of change. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that a solution has to be found that satisfies every person on Wiki. I was not involved in the original edit war and would like the opportunity to edit the article. The fact thatYuber is not involved is a very very good thing. He was told NOT to be editing (actually he does not edit, he reverts) such controversial articles. And it appears that he had a big role in getting this page locked in the first place.

--Noitall 13:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theo RFA

Hi sarah: Thanks for your support. It is particularly pleasing to have the good guys behind me. --Theo (Talk) 14:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Query

I have no idea who or what made the edit here. [10] I just now logged onto the internet and saw it myself. Rangerdude 17:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Forums

Hi SlimVirgin, sorry for late reply .

Actually the trouble had started b4 I had called anybody from anywhere . U can see the edit histories of Islam , Muhammad , Quran article for reference . I hadbeen to some sites ( Jihadwatch & Faithfreedom.org ) where they had a project going on for adding their hate filled stuff to Islam articles in Wp . ([11]This is one of the links that I could come up with , the rest might have been deleted ). I had just send PM to some muslims present on their sites . But as I can see no body wanted to come here , since the only new user here is Anonymous User , who didnt come on my request , as he said .So these troubles have nothing to do with me . To get a real picture of the actual mindset of there guys , U should visit their sites . U will find the same words/pharases/insults & even the same incorrect translations that they try to put here . Everybody of them claims to have studied Islam for many many years , but when U ask them very basic concepts , like concept of monotheism in Islam , they cant comeup even with a coherent paragraph . U can also see the Jihad talk page for reference , where the man/lady said that she was a born Saudi & was sold by her muslim father , & when Yuber asked for a single sentence translation from Arabic to English, he/she couldnt do it .

Now coming back to WP , this Islam bashing stuff had been going on , may be from even b4 2005 . Andthe people here surrendered thinking that this may be a good willed editor trying to improve WP . But then this stuff went on & on with attacks on many Islam pages , at alarming rates . After sometime I broke the news to them that this is not coincidence that Islam pages R being attacked regularly , but a well set Agenda of "Trying to save the world from the claws & fangs of Islam " . So that made the picture very clear to I think everybody else too . And ofcourse , this resulted in more fierce resistance . And when they couldnt do anything they starting adding nude pics on Islam pages . There have been several pics of dicks & pussies on Islam pages , U can see history for reference . And the pics R the very same that was present on their sites . There is still some of their phobic stuff present on some Islam pages , without any sources .

Now about what to do .... well difficult question . They R on an agenda .....with no wish to go back . So for me & other muslim editors here , its better to have a war of reverts going on , rather that having MUhammad the pedophile , Allah the moonGod , Aisha the prostitute , Quran a bible copy , & Islam equals slavery/terrorism kind of stuff being permanently added .

Btw what is this ArbCom filing that Inter is talking about on Jihad page ??

Kindest regards . Farhansher 18:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work

Just thought I'd let you know that the good work you've been doing on feces and talk:feces is appreciated by your fellow Wikipedians. →Raul654 18:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qana Incident

Slim, what do you think about the name Qana Bombing?

Guy Montag 19:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merging it with Qana, Lebanon also is a good idea. It would get rid of cloning articles with divergent infomation. We can have Qana, Lebanon as the general name, and Qana Bombing as the focus.

Guy Montag 20:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on the talk page. The discussion died down when Yuber found out he couldn't have his way anymore, but I'll wait around for other editors and see if they have an objection.

Guy Montag 20:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/l/i/User_talk%7ESlimVirgin_archive13_b23e.html"