User talk:SlimVirgin/archive27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Potential problem

At this point I'm just cautious. this guy seems like a good contributor, but there maybe be a problem with his approach...specifically he seems to be "signing" articles. I've left him a note on his talk page outlining my concerns, but I don't seem to be able to find a policy specifically prohibiting his .sig in the form it has presently...nevertheless I'm not sure it's entirely w/in the bounds or spirit of several policies, nor compatible with the parameters of GDFL to permit it. He seems to be a bright guy, so I thought I'd bring this to your attention before a less level-headed user finds it and blows a gasket and sends him scrambling from the Project w/ a bad taste in his mouth. It's my considered opinion that your diplomatic skills and broad knowledge are needed to resolve this the best way possible. Cheers, Tomertalk 06:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection request

Please protect the Kven article. For quite a long time a nationalistic contributor pumps his original research into this article. For some time I was patiently reverting his most fantastic findings (like the word queen is of Finnish (Kvennish) origin and that Varangians were Kvens), since I am not very familiar with the topic. Now a a couple of other editors came with some knowledge and cleaned up most of the garbage. This editor started using lots of sock puppets to restore his text, and things became pretty ugly on the page. YOu may see complaints collected by several editors on top of my talk page.

Please protect it, but make sure that the version is not one of redlinked editors with some weird name. mikka (t) 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Howard Zinn issue

I wanted to ask for a bit of help with Howard Zinn's article. I made some admittedly pretty large and bold edits there, however, I believe they were all warranted given the shape of the article beforehand. It was something that much closer resembled a Wikiquote page, as it was largely a collection of Zinn quotes and writing presented uncritically. I essentially cut out what wasn't in the appropriate section. The intro was lots of Zinn quotes and his political views. The biography was lots of Zinn quotes and political views. I essentially removed those, and left a reasonable intro, and the parts of his biography which were actually biographical in nature.

A section on Zinn's political views would be warranted, however, that's not currently what the debate is centered around. Rather, other editors are committed to protecting the sillyness which was there before. Am I mistaken here with my edits? I believe while they are large, they are also pretty reasonable. However, given that I am relatively new, I wanted to ask for the guideance of an admin with whom I've had some contact, to see if I am out of line here.

Could you please take a look at the article, my changes, and the talk page? Thanks. Bibigon 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-creation of deleted article

Hi, Slim. Hope you're around tonight. I'd like you to have a look at two posts I made a few minutes ago to WP:DRV. The Will McWhinney article was created again. I've deleted it, but I think someone who knows a bit about the background should take a closer look at the "new" editor. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BarryHorne.gif

Slim, could you please edit Image:BarryHorne.gif to indicate how you know that the copyright holder has "irrevocably released all rights to it"?

I couldn't find any such info on the place you uploaded from. Please link to, and copy over, the exact permission language you found.

If you can't find any explicit permission, please either add an appropriate fair-use rationale or list the image on WP:PUI.

Thanks!

—Steven G. Johnson 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holi greetings

Hello SV from an Indian wikipedian. I am wishing you a happy Holi, the unique Hindu celebration of color and brotherhood among all members of the humanity. The festival falls on 15th March 2006. By the way, I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 05:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petition linkspam

Hi Slim, There is an anonymous user who seems to stay at the same IP address, User:63.199.155.82, whose (nearly) entire edit activity consists of adding linkspam to article about a petition/statement called "World can't wait" (s/he claims in edit comments that it's a "statement", though I have no idea what distinction might be intended). This editor adds a couple sentences that a given person, subject of the edited bio, is signatory to this statement. I came across these edits because some of the bios so edited were on my watchlist; since seeing it, I have gone through reversion rounds a couple times, as have a few other editors. A lot of different editors have put vandalism warnings on the user talk page of the IP editor.

I don't know for sure if all (or any) of the persons with modified bios really signed this petition. I saw on a few talk pages that existing editors doubted the evidence of such (or found it absent altogether). But for the most part, signature seems plausible, just completely non-notable from perspective of the bios. The petition statement is a leftish anti-Bush thing, and the alleged signatories are liberal or leftist; everyone with so modified bios has certainly signed hundreds of similar petitions during the course of their political (or artistic, etc) career. The edits mainly seem like a ruse to increase the google ranking of the "World can't wait website". Actually, there is a similar problem with another petition called "911 Truth", that appears on many of the same pages; but I think was not placed there by the same IP address (except during some reversions).

Actually, during this vandal fighting, I found one use that I didn't remove since it was made plausible. In the article about Rep. Cynthia McKinney, it says (roughly): she signed the 911 Truth statement and served on the 911 commission; she signed the World can't wait and called in Congress for Bush's impeachment. There's a little bit of gamesmanship in including the statements, but there's a sort of connection made to her actual notable political actions. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-emptive

We seem to be using opposite meanings of the word. I take it to mean that vandalism occurs at a high rate to an article, and semi-protection is consequently applied. You seem to mean that applying semiprotection in such cases somehow pre-empts something that isn't happening when it is. I'm confused. If you'd prefer the policy to allow for protection before any vandalism, then you'll need to make a fairly convincing case for that. -Splashtalk 00:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RF, Starlight problem

Dear Slim

I request that you mediate in an issue, Starlight problem where an editor keeps reverting despite violating the rules against providing sources.

Two main things:

  1. The section Distant Starlight Problem#First attempts to address the problem has no sources. Those who insist on this section have been repeatedly asked to state which early creationists proposed such a thing, and when. For example, the statement "In the early part of the twentieth century most Young Earthers would assert that the stars were not in fact as far away as science suggests" lacks any reference to a creationist from 1900-1950.
  1. A section Tu quoque[1] is repeatedly deleted although it was sourced to a creationist who made this argument in one of their publications. The question is not whether it is a good or bad argument; rather, in a page of a problem for creationists, it is proper to state creationist responses that can be sourced. 203.213.77.138 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptome

Could you please unprotect the article Cryptome ? See its talk page for my original request. Schutz 12:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. --Bhadani 17:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I request you to kindly favor me with your views and comments. --Bhadani 17:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-USGov-Interior-FWS


What would you say to using this as the image license icon? I've just posted the same query on User talk:Gmaxwell .
Cuppysfriend 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Jewry

I know that this term is often used without any political or racist connotations in many contexts. However it is also associated with white nationalist organizations since pre-WWII who use it as a synonym for the international Jewish conspiracy. I think that in any context, there should be another term that works just as well.

I'm not sure talk pages are the best place to discuss this however. Maybe on the talk page for Jew? --Ryan Delaney talk 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Benapgar

Ben's repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (I think Felonious mentioned this to you earlier). He is now violating WP:CIVIL to comments that are clearly jokes: [2]. Could you kindly remind him of policy and/or give him a short block? Thanks. JoshuaZ 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machsom watch

I am puzzeled by this edit [3] - What Iriah times say is 100% true. In fact, it is far more than that: IDF has created a special unit that it's job is only checkpoints ( user:Ynhockey is in this unit i think) and they get special training just for that. This is to ensure consistent and respectfull contact with the local palestinian population. The unit also has high number of Arabic speakers for that purpose. No doubt in my mind that this postive change is because of the watch women constant monitoring and reporting. Zeq 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slim,

Yes you are correct. It will be hard to prove. The unit does exist (that i can prove) and the connection between watch women daily monitoring to the establishment of this unit is clear to me but hard to source it. There were times when IDF was in panic because of them at the end they reacted by creating thisunit and creating strong policies and punishments to soldiers who break it. I have seen how watch women complain about aa soldier and he get an immidiate punishment by his supiriors. (just to be NPOV:-) : I have also seen cases when their complains are rejected) Zeq 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successful RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know.

Cactus.man ✍ 07:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re an image vandal

Can you tell me anyone who is an Admin here and also an Admin on commons. I don't any over there. There is an image in speedy deletions that a vandal keeps inserting into articles that can't be deleted here as it is on commons. It was once deleted here. it is [4].Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Disregard. It has been listed for deletion on commons now. Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 20:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] polite request

i'd like u to stop harassing me. i improved the article on lithium in what i regarded as a minor way. if improving articles is unwelcome here, pls let me know and i'll do my best to match the standards u and the rest of the gang displayed on the irving article. Jamaissur

[edit] Archiving Policy Talk Page

Ah, but you can follow the history in archived page. Is there some sort of guideline I'm not aware of? FWBOarticle

[edit] i'm on wikiquote too

hey slim -- pls run the microscope over my contribs 2 wikiquote under the same user name. thanx. Jamaissur

[edit] Hope you haven't forgotten me

Dear SV, I hope you haven't forgotten me and my problem. I last wrote to you March 3rd. Sincerely, Gorkhali 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel corrie

Hi Slim,

To the best of my memory the IDF never claimed what is now written in the article. They were not at all targeting the house for demolition (at least not that day)

I have seen what was broadcsted in Israel Ch 2 : video from a remote IDF camera that was on a lookup post in Philadlphi corideor about 100 meters away. The camera zoomed in on the D-9 about 1-2 seconds after rachel was hit.


The location was a rather open area, at least 20-30 meters or more from the row of buildings. IDF claimed that they were clearing brush not doing any demolition.

A bedouin officer who was in charge of directing the D-9 clearly said in TV inteview that earlier that day he tried to direct the D-9 but because sniper fire he was forced to enter his vehicle. If we are to report the IDF claims we should do it accuratly. I am sure IDF also changed their version few times (they always do, as they did in the Tom Hurndall case maybe 5 times) but what I wrote was their original claims they made.

best, Zeq 18:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the work you have done with respect to Andrew Morrow, He called me and explained what he was up to. He definitely needs to move on, focus on his own life and quit dwelling on past wrongs. He has no place here until he does. Fred Bauder 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it me?

Slim - you're a long standing and well known figure round here, and I respect your judgment. Tell me this: is it me, or are there a bunch of admins around this place that take things waaaaay too seriously? There seems to be a real case of minor league football referee about some of the people here (and I don't mean you, by the way). ElectricRay 00:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree about the utter nonsense - but it strikes me much of this is totally systemic, and could be fixed quite easily, by fiarly formal changes such as (i) only allowing registered editors to edit and (ii) introducing some form of reputation management system (like eBay's transaction rating and Amazon's "helpful" votes). I can't see what the downside would be for the project, and it would reduce the need for "janitorial" admin work as well, which itself is a source of conflict and disatisfaction, out of which trolling and vandalism grows. Do you know why these sort of measures haven't been adopted?

Re Stark - well, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Sticks and stones, and all that. ElectricRay 00:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thanks SlimVirgin/archive27
Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry

Hi there, I just want to get a second opinion from an admin, so would you please look at this section[5] and see if there are any violations, like incivilty, etc. Yeah, and you definitely don`t have to warn the editor in question [Lukas]--but, I just wanted to get an idea of what is going on. ThanksZmmz 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikilinks

Hi Slim,

These two wikilinks should find their way tio the Corrie article:

"Israel-Egyptian border - where smugling tunnels"

I appriciate if you can add them.

Best, Zeq 07:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] polite warning

if u or jay stalk me any more (it's gone beyond harassment) i will be complaining. i told u politely some time ago to LEARN abt the topic of an article b4 interfering w/ it. yet again u've deliberately ignored my advice, interfered and wasted my time. Jamaissur

  • I remind you to be civil while posting on someone else's talk page and the words are spelled 'you' and 'before'. - nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katelyn Faber

Hello SlimVirgin, could you please weigh in on this article. It involves the use of an tabloid style photo on the biography of an possible rape victim. I removed the image and asked that it not be re-inserted without consensus from a large number of experienced users. I have not edited the article before. I saw it when one user took it to arb comm. I'm not sure there is an arb comm case. It looks more like a simple content dispute, so far. FloNight talk 14:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I vote delete. I just left a message on Guy user page about my deletion stragegy. You see, the image was in Kobe Bryant, too. I took it out with the same stern warning about not re-inserting. I didn't start a discussion there. I prefered this discussion on Katelyn Faber. If you delete it hopefully it is gone for good without a second discussion. : ) FloNight talk 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smurrayinchester's RFA

Thank you, SlimVirgin/archive27
Thank you! for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 100/1/0. Thanks for your vote! If you have any comments, please say so here. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Thank you!

[edit] Michael Levy

Nice talkpage btw.

Is there a problem with the ref to his immigrant parents? It wasn't intended to be derogatory.

[edit] Seudah/Seudat mitzvah

Ok, as the consensus seemed to be to merge, I went ahead and did so, making quite a few changes along the way. Please comment, or make corrections, additions, improvements. : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for mediation made

hi slim -- here's a copy of my initial complaint in case u haven't already seen it by stalking my edits.

I'm being subject to harassment by two administrators, User:Slimvirgin and User:Jayjg (among other users), who object to my editing and are trying to drive me off the Wikipedia with persistent interference, factitious objections and POV censorship. After trying (and failing) to set me up under 3RR, they are now accusing me of "disruption" and threatening me with a ban because I have objected to their harassment. Among their complaints is that I have been "uncivil". An example of Slim's own standards of civility can be seen on my User talk:Jamaissur: she stalked my editing until she found a chance to make an aggressive and uncivil objection to it, apparently not feeling obliged to follow the same rules as she applies to others. I have little hope that a complaint about administrators will be successful, but here is one anyway.

and don't worry -- advances in brain modification and control will soon mean that ppl like me can be prevented from even having heretical thoughts. a brave new world dawns, and u're 1 of its shining heralds. Jamaissur 09:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever wondered why buddy in Red Dawn yells: "avenge me, boys! AVENGE MEEEE!!!" My first thought was: "dude, shut up, you're going to blow their cover!" Luckily the invadors were too busy doing the reeducation thing that they do. Phew. As for you, Mister (Mz.?) Jamaissur, you've already been told repeatedly to cease from directing personal attacks and incivilities. It's difficult to see how these sort of orwellian (or huxlian, even) accusations can work toward mediating the dispute. More cogently on what these "heretical thoughts" actually consist of, the RfM, and perhaps the fine art, and science, of doublespeak, upon your return 24 hours from now (while you remain free to edit your talk page for the duration, I'd advise you to take a break so as to facilitate utmost composure and calm). El_C 11:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HOW DARE YOU

How dare you change what I have done you.

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for being so patiant with me. I understand and appriciate you are sticking by the policy. My only 2 cents are:

  1. We should apply policy in a uniform way, across all articles and to all POVs.
  2. If the policy drive us to do things that are against the intention of the policy and we end up quoting propeganda, then we may need to change that policy.

best, Zeq 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PS, I don't plain to hammer this point any longer. You argue well (that's a compliment) but the result of this is (in my view) wrong. Well, would not not be the first or last wrong thing that finds it's way into wikipedia. Best, Zeq 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for attention

Dear SlimVirgin. I write to as I would like to get the attention of an administrator to the "newroz" / "narouz" dispute. Today it went bananas with one editor unilateraly merging the Newroz article into Norouz, without transfering the text on the Kurdish Newroz and without participating in debate (except labeling his oponents as idiots and vandals. Would you please have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Newroz_.28edit_.C2.B7_talk_.C2.B7_links_.C2.B7_history_.C2.B7_watch.29 and the respective talk pages.

Thank you in advance Bertilvidet 16:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the redirect to Norouz. The article that looks at the Kurdish concept is at Norouz and the Kurds. See Talk:Newroz#Page_protection. Kaveh 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremiah Duggan AfD nomination

Dear SlimVirgin, I see you have reverted the AfD tag 3 times today, and the AfD log itself. I wonder if you could explain why you think that the AfD nomination should not be discussed openly. I don't have an opinion on the article either way (I know nothing about it), but it looked like you were engaging in an edit war. I've never seen an AfD summarily rejected by an Admin before, so perhaps there is a policy page you could direct me to. Slowmover 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, no reply needed. I tracked down the AfD entry directly, and see the discussion there. But perhaps we could leave the link on the AfD log for the day so that it's easier to find? Thanks. Slowmover 20:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC). Thanks for your quick reply on my userpage, too! Slowmover 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Purple haze [6], [7], [8] --Dakota ~ ° 21:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah

Yeah, like that's really your reason. I'd call it an excuse, and a rather lame one at that. Everyking 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You see, you reverted me a second time even when on that occasion there was nothing to conceivably violate the ruling—now, what does that tell us? And unless you provide a good reason for that protection, I will unprotect again. Everyking 05:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Why in the world should a comment have to go on the admin's talk page? I view it as more appropriate to put the comment there, especially as in its revised form it isn't a response to the blocking admin at all, but rather general commentary on the situation. And the page should be unprotected so that A) the blocked user can protest his block and B) non-admins can weigh in on the issue. Everyking 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's general commentary on the situation, as I said before, and not a response to the admin. I would like it if another admin would unblock the user, for instance, to allow the process I outlined to take place. Everyking 05:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to use "talk" in the suffix?

I know that one can attack his name by four waves, but how is your suffix accomplished? Now that I see your talk page, I'd also like to know how one can change the colour of the backgroung. Thank you for your trouble! Teemu Ruskeepää 16:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Talk:Nakba_denial Zeq 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking parole violation

[9]. The arguments he's continuing to insist were right were, of course, his continued badgering of me. This violates the letter and spirit of his parole. Would you please intervene? Phil Sandifer 19:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Got them - thanks, and very good to hear it. Phil Sandifer 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAMthatIAM

I think IAMthatIAM would also have been blockable under the remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. Fred Bauder 22:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not being as aggressive as I would be. Fred Bauder 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username

What are your thoughts on my objection to this user name[10].--Dakota ~ ° 21:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My objection is sort of, it's my ex's if you formalized it and added his first name. It may not be blockable but it makes me so unconfortable in that that surmane is uncommon and so close.--Dakota ~ ° 21:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal but proof of a sort and easily accessible on the internet, old old web page. [11]--Dakota ~ ° 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Thank you from the bottom of my heart and forgive that ugly webpage. Wipe if off if you will it has a friends email address in the string she created it a few years ago. She is a geocities freak--Dakota ~ ° 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle East Forum

It is hardly WP:NPOV to place a link from one of the most anti palestinian organizations that exists on the Palestinian people page, please see Talk:Palestinian_people#Middle_East_Forum_link. Arniep 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R. J. Rummel again

Doesn't a dispute tag have at some point to be backed by substantive claims? I'm sorry to bother you with this again, but Ultramarine seems to think he can invent whatever he pleases (see Talk:R. J. Rummel and the links there made) and insert tags on that basis.

Thank you for letting me blow off steam. Septentrionalis 04:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over Carlebach "allegations"

Hi SlimVirgin: I am not making much headway with User:Ckessler at Talk:Shlomo Carlebach#Allegations, yet again. I have placed this message on her page, and she is going for mediation, but I have yet to see where.

Hi Ckessler: You are on the borderline of breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in the Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach article, see [12] I do not wish to revert you a third time today. Twice is enough for me, I have no choice but to wait another 24 hours to do so. You are treating hearsay and gossip as if they were the legal equivalants of allegations in a duly constituted court of law. A number of admins who know something about this subject will be contacted, to advise how we should proceed. Your refusal to discuss to resolve this matter on the article's talk page is disappointing.

Your input into this matter would be highly appreciated. Thanks. IZAK 09:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach

Also add your comments at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach. Thank you. IZAK 10:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Alienus

Hi. I placed a {{npa}} template on User_talk:Alienus, primarily in response to this edit where he bashes AnnH. He is removing it. Since I don't really want to get into an edit war with him (obviously, we've crossed paths before), can I ask you to take a look and restore the warning, if you believe it is appropriate?

I put the warning there because I believe this user has a pattern of engaging in personal attacks, and so I want to start documenting that he's been warned. If he removes the warnings, that won't happen.

As always, if you think I'm off base, please feel free to just tell me that instead. Nandesuka 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

He spat at me two months ago (I'm not joking — take a look at this) after I politely told him that he had violated 3RR but that I wasn't going to report him (see earlier on the same page)! And he has been extraordinarily uncivil and sarcastic on the abortion talk page recently. AnnH ♫ 13:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you look at the recent history of Talk:Robert_Steadman, and these two sections on Alienus's talk page, he is making insinuations about Jayjg's honesty. For the record, the sockpuppets that Jay blocked had actually voted the same way as Jay! AnnH ♫ 13:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
There's not a lot that can be done about a user deleting material from his talk page. The only time I try to insist on posts staying on a talk page is during a block so that other admins can see why the user was blocked. In this case, I'd put a note on his talk page (I would leave a note, rather than use the template), warning that he's likely to be blocked for disruption if the personal attacks continue, and that his deletion of warnings from his talk page isn't casting him in a good light. I'd be willing to be the one to block him if you're involved in a content dispute with him, because I haven't edited with him (as I recall anyway), so let me know if it happens again. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there's not a lot you can do about a user deleting material from his talk page, and I recently tried to discourage another editor from reposting messages to User:Pro-Lick, who was deleting them as vandalism. I recall that David Gerard said on one of the admin noticeboards that when an editor deletes a message from his talk page, you know that he has seen it, and it's still there in the history for evidence, so to keep on posting it serves no purpose. (Of course, it's still frightfully rude to delete it!) Hope all is well with you. AnnH ♫ 20:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, almost as rude as talking about someone behind their back.

Hi, Slim. We did meet a while back, though you've probably forgotten because it wasn't all that eventful. The context was a dispute with a guy named Loxley, over his attempt to inject his anti-Dennett POV everywhere. He wound up leaving, although I did have to "take one for the team" by getting blocked myself. You had tried to get involved but gave up.

Anyhow, if you want to discuss me, a good place to do it is my user page. Much more honest. Alienus 23:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The irony, as it were, is terribly thick here tonight. Nandesuka 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As it happens "discuss me" and "leave spurious warnings" are different things. You would do well to learn the difference. Alienus 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The warnings weren't spurious, as you well know. If you don't want to be warned for making personal attacks, then stop making personal attacks. Nandesuka 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd sooner stop beating my wife. Alienus 04:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo Corrie

Ur right - i was in a bit of a hurry so i just wrote public domain as licence - which is not entirely correct.

The comic is of course copyrighted though the author consented to the publication, as you know it was publicised (see publication in a legal context). The publication rights have not been transferred to the local university-newpaper but stayed within the author who consented to the act of publication and never revoked that status. The status certainly cannot stay at public domain - though i don't have the time right now to change all the appropriate flags for the pic.

[edit] Is this valid ?

Hi Slim,

Is this a valid user name: [13] ? Zeq 09:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Mullins.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mullins.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

If you're willing to set it up, I would suggest an RfC against Lumiere and his various incarnations. He's just wasting everyone's time and he's been told that many times. At some point no article contributions and endless arguing is just disruption. I think we're long past that point here. Thanks for dealing with it for so long. - Taxman Talk 14:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidently he's not willing to listen to the consensus against his actions. His responses to you on his talk page are straw men. He concedes the policies are basically sound, but that he needs to polish them up before he can use them. I agree you've been doing well handling this, but currently more time is being wasted. I urge setting up an RfC soon. - Taxman Talk 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

I convey my greetings to you on my completion of one year as a wikipedian, and I am sure that we shall continue to build the sum total of human knowledge. And, I shall surly feel “sad” if you fail to reply on my talk page. --Bhadani 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Thank you for your help with the 3RR claim filed by me against another editor.

In response to your mention in the Admin area that my version wasn't getting support, it was my understanding that providing reliably sourced citations validated the inclusion of facts in the appropriate areas. As you can see from the talk page, Viriditas requested citations, and I provided them for the additional information that I included. I felt that Humus' response to simply delete the cited information was inappropriate.

Regardless, thanks again.

Sincerely, Lokiloki 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving

SlimVirgin:

I am not planning on making any more posts anywhere on wikipedia for a long time. I would like to ask that you please hide this, or if that is not allowed to please consider moving it to some other place. If you don't want to do it right away, please consider doing it at somepoint in the future, after enough time has gone by that you are confident I really do not plan on coming back into this universe any more to cause trouble. In my real life, I have made some people very mad at me. Please try to believe I am not asking you move that for any disingenuous reason. I will leave now and quit causing trouble. Sorry for being obnoxious. TroiS6 Mr. Slimvirgin: I also wanted to tell you one other thing. Only after I created that one account, said some things in a talk channel, and then decided I didn't like the name, and so changed it and then said some more things... only then later did I start reading about the rules of this game, and learned that people often create muliple accounts for unwholesome reasons. It was never my intention to deceive anyone. It hadn't even occured to me that people would do that. That is why I so quickly admitted to having created two accounts. There were no shenanigans -- everything I told you was the truth. Sorry for being so naive.

[edit] Joe Carr

Exellent detective work! *Applause*--inksT 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Absolutely. I'm sick of this, and it's only when people start running round while a discussion is still ongoing that I'm inclined to start shooting edits on sight. If he's pledged to stop in the meantime, then I've no need to be reverting him. Ambi 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Hey SlimVirgin. So many people register every day on wikipedia, some stay here just for a day or two ([14], [15], [16]), some for a month, and then are not seen again. I just noticed that this week you completed 500 days on wikipedia. Congratulations on reaching this milestone! Since the time I have been here, I've always found you to be a very active and committed member, a real asset to wikipedia. Please accept this token of sincere appreciation from my side. Hoping to completely leaving the past aside, and apologizing from the bottom of my heart for hurting you in the past, I look forward to collaborating with you on so many things, like animal rights in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uprotect

Hi SlimVirgin,

Can you unprotect Newroz now. I think a consensus has been reached (a few days ago). Newroz was included as a subsection in Norouz, and a link to the Kurdish celebration of Newroz. All transliterations of Norouz will be redirected to Norouz. See Possible version for Norouz on the Norouz talk page and Talk:Newroz#Conclusion.3F on the Newroz talk page. Diyako has agreed to this (if Newroz is spelled Newroz in the Kurish page), which is the case, and the other two protagonists Sina Kardar has not been active on Wikipedia for 5 days, and Kashayar Karimi has moved on. -- Jeff3000 15:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much :) -- Jeff3000 20:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ~Lumiere

I admire the tone with which you are dialogueing with Lumiere... it was not something I was quite able to do.

If you do take any official action, please let me know, I did battle with Lumiere on the Transcendental Meditation page and would like to participate.

peace, Sethie 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion is not reversion

So simply "editing" a page and returning it to a prior version (as he did on the 1st and 2nd reverts) is not an actual revert, even if it returns to an exact prior version? That's interesting to know... that means people can simply "edit" other users' contributions and in the process delete them, and that won't be counted as a revert... even if it is returned to an exact same state? ..."he deleted a section added (I believe) by Lokiloki (an edit, not a revert)"... Wow. So deleting new added content is not considered a revert? That surely seems an inaccurate reading of the revert rule. Lokiloki 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

elements cross-posted

Well, erm, I would disagree with you on the suggestion that "an involved admin can adminster blocks as appropriate"; surely that runs contrary to the entire point of AN/I and so on, asking other, non-involved sysops to carry out sysop actions? :-)
I wasn't threatening to block people for a content dispute, but for massively inappropriate behaviour on the part of people who really, really should know better. I mean, these people wrote the rules, for heavens's sake.
I completely agree about compromise wording being the best outcome, and the one to work towards; that it why I am, ahem, disappointed to see people prejudicing said work, and "jumping the gun". Sadly, I'm now off on holiday, and no doubt this will all be decided, one way or another (and probably the "wrong" way ;-)) before I return.
James F. (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privatization

Before reverting, read the Talk page, and discuss. To call something LaRouche without evidence to the same is not enough. I want proof that this edit promotes LaRouche. I do not see that it does. If your interested in this issue, give us your two cents on the talk page. Thank You. --Northmeister 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've re-worded HK's edit. I fully understand outsourcing and privatization and how it affects the United States today. Outsourcing government services (especially military and intelligence) is a form of privatization of those said services and does not resemble the out-sourcing in regards to private jobs. In America, we call such 'privatization', elsewhere it is more often called 'corporatization'. Anyway, I removed your concerns from my edit, and also added words to address what the conference was about. I welcome any comments, but let's not get into a reverting war over this. Let's discuss it and see where that goes first. Thanks. --Northmeister 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I approve of your recent edits to the page. You have a point about the quote, although it does show a sentiment that is strong in the USA regarding most recent events of privatization. --Northmeister 01:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've answered your question with several quotes and cites on that page for your observation. Thanks. --Northmeister 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel

Thank you for blocking him. I tried reasoning with him months ago and then got out of it because it was useless. I've been silently watching from the sidelines, and you have done the right thing. Thank you. - grubber 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabrielsimon aliases

Howdy, I've indef blocked User:Gabrielsimon and User:Gavin the Chosen per your block of User:Gimmiet for consistency, and have left a request on Otherkin's talk requesting vigilance. Let me know if you want me to change anything, I stand ready to assist as needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

For doing the Right Thing re: Quadell. (Shame about Gabriel Simon, I really liked him for all his inability to edit co-operatively.)

Rich Farmbrough 23:37 26 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Glad to Have You With Us!

Greetings, SlimVirgin!
I'd heard that you'd left us but I see you've made edits today. Glad to know you're still here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian people

I am frankly shocked by your attempt to force the inclusion of this completely non WP:NPOV link in Palestinian people. The Middle East Forum has consistantly shown pro Israeli bias and Pipes himself has said that there should be no Palestinian state. An article on a website founded by someone who said that cannot be appropriate in an article on Palestinians. Arniep 00:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, we should try to avoid extremes of bias especially where a source may have a vested interest in denigrating a subject as is the case there. Similarly I would not include any articles created by pro muslim groups on Jewish history pages. Arniep 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, academics can still have bias, including race based bias. You just have to read Daniel Pipes' article to see that his neutrality in regards to Arabs or Muslims has been questioned by many. Arniep 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Arnie, please direct the discussion to the article Talk: page, where everyone can read it. Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please try and stay WP:CIVIL Thanks Arniep 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? That request could hardly have been more WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you check

He's back and I don't know if I can infinite this one.[17] and [18] --Dakota ~ ° 00:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And this I just note the edit summary.[19]--Dakota ~ ° 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union of Concerned Scientists

Hi! You left a note on the RfP for Union of Concerned Scientists about sources. I think that all the sources that I used that were not "reliable sources" for factual content, I clearly expressed as opinion. For example, it is perfrectly acceptable to say "UCS received a Ideological Spectrum Rating of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center. [20]". It is a factual statement, it is sourced and it clearly states who holds the opinion. It is like saying "The Earth is Flat according to the [Flat Earth Society]". This is NPOV. Your comment that the source is unreputable is now being used to wholesale delete a number of edits. Please review this and the NPOV section on opinion. Thanks! --Tbeatty 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your threats regarding Talmud

Thank you for the lovely threat about the three reversion rule on the Talmud page. However, I am indeed well aware of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the policy. However, I must say, while you might not agree with the individual's statements on the page, he was editing in good faith. Throwing large "here is a troll!" posters all over the page and then blanking it in the middle of the discussion (there was NOT "broad consensus" about the topic) only detracts from Wiki's intent. Look, I don't agree with Zadil's point of view at all, however, calling his edits "trolling" and merely erasing what is his legitimate right of discussion only adds to bad blood.

To put it simply- accusing this individual of trolling and blanking of the talk page en-masse does a disservice to all of Wikipedia. Please take this as a civil attempt at discussion, but if neccesary I will continue to put back the good-faith edits that were erased wantonly- wanton page blanking, after all, doesn't fall under the 3RR. Cheers indeed. Daniel Davis 08:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of your vandalism might be that it's not "simple"- you might consider your vandalism to be lovely and complex, a thing of great artistic beauty. The wonderous pasty whitespace indeed has the bearing of cleanliness, which might be taken as artistic in a different context. However, on Wikipedia, taking a big ole whitewash of paint and erasing an entire talk page because you don't agree with the sentiments of a poster on it, well that's about as simple as vandalism gets. I can guarantee you that if I were to hop onto the Grand Canyon page and replace the entire talk section with blank whitespace because I feel that clay dirt isn't getting the respect it deserved, it would recieve much the same treatment- because blanking of an entire page, especially without leaving an edit summary, IS simple vandalism. Daniel Davis 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit, I find your attitude disheartening. You make the assumption that everyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow ignorant and hasn't "read" the policies? I assure you, I already read them and indeed I follow them to a tee (which, you will note, has kept me from reverting the hideous troll images put there). Just because I don't agree with your definition of "simple vandalism" doesn't mean that I haven't somehow "read" the wikipedia guidelines. On top of that, shoving a page discussion into an archive while said discussion is still ongoing in an attempt to stifle the conversation of the page is very, very bad faith. Shame on you, Slimvirgin. *wags finger* Daniel Davis 08:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiads

Hey slim, I just thought I would notify you that User:87.80.82.116 seems to be adding links to the same two books in numerous articles, and is doing little else. I'm not sure but I think he might basically be adding advertisments to these books as I've recently heard of other new editors doing a similar thing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche

Herschelkrustofsky seems to be violating his sanctions by editing the "synarchism" article. He is also trying to get the article protected to prevent anyone else from editing it. Could you please take a look? Thanks. 172 | Talk 14:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Jews

Hello user:Zmmz has constantly reverted any reference to the Parthian Empire being influenced by Hellenism, which is completly oppostional to any mainstream historian and indeed common sense and logic, and instead adds "secularism" which makes no sense in the context he adds it in. When I tell him that it doesn't make any sense he keeps saying the same thing. I have spent half the day arguing with him and another editor on the talk page and despite providing evidence and sources that indicate he is mistaken he continues to write the same thing occasionally with something complely irrelvevent (last time it was that Ashkenazi Jews are decended from a Sythian tribe), I am becomming increasingly frustrated and have reached the conclusion that Zmmz is literally insane. The discussion is under Parthia and Hellenism on the talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bugging you with this article but there are several editors that have repeatedly added this passage-

In Israel, conditions for Persian Jews are not much better as they are classified as Mizrahi Jews, hence facing continued social discrimination. Earning gaps continue to persist [11] and political Mizrahi struggles for gaining equal rights continue to endure(example). A CNN broadcast on April 16 2005 reported "ethnic discrimination, of which the victims are mostly Ethiopian children and children of Mizrahi origins" [12], and in 2006, such discriminations led Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to sharply criticize what he called the "ethos of proportionality, of equality and of discrimination against Mizrahi Jews."[13] In the words of prominent Israeli sociologist Alek Epstein: "How many Mizrahi Jews are to be found in the judicial, economic or media elites? Today's elite is the same old elite; the only difference is that it loses in elections."[14]

The sources they provide do not support some of their claims, and their first source seems to be a student editorial or somthing so I'm not sure that is reliable enough as a source. On a seperate note I should apoligize for calling the other user insane, it was unneccessary hyperbole and I actually have resolved the conflicts with both editors.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

The user is being uncivil and abusive [21] toward other users who disagree with him on Talk:Persian Jews. I just saw that User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has called another editor "literally insane" on your talk page.[22] I must say that I'm rather surprised that such obvious personal attack has been overlooked since you are an administrator. --ManiF 06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An outside comment

An outside comment, ManiF and Moshe are both on the blacklist in #vandalism-wp-en

ManiF on blacklist, "Autoblacklist: 3rr vio at Iranian peoples", Expires 13:21:47 31-Mar-2006 UTC Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg on blacklist, "Autoblacklist: 3rr", Expires 20:53:50 29-Mar-2006 UTC

⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Replied on talk. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian territories and annexation

None of the territories were officially annexed, save East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights Law (חוק רמת הגולן) of 1981 intentionally avoided the word annexation. This needs to be made more clear, as the sentence can be seen to be refering solely to East Jerusalem (correct), or also, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hope this helps. El_C 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I copied the wrong edit summary for the above. At any rate, I removed the incorrect passage. El_C 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure. I just translated most of the חוק רמת הגולן as Golan Heights Law. If you get a chance, please help link it wherever pertinent and/or copyed. I have to get going now. Bye. El_C 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi SlimVirgin: I have received the following request concerning Rabbi Yaakov Meidan:

Rav Meidan, now a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshivat Har Etzion, recently requested that his name be spelled in English publications as "Yaaqov Medan." As you can imagine, this spelling garners much fewer Google hits than when spelled with a k. Should his article, and all mentions of him, be changed to "Yaaqov" in deference to him as a self-identifying entity, or not? I'm not familiar enough with WP:NC to know the answer. Thanks, DLand 18:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Input is welcome. IZAK 20:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anniversary

Sure, SlimVirgin! Keep up the good work :) Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permanent block of User:216.194.2.210

Hi thanks for blocking him, but couldnt you like permanently block him, I have seen loads of users indefinately blocked for attacks such as those, regards Superdude99 11:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [23]

[edit] Romanians

Hello Slim,

I thank you for giving me that rule of I was not aware, but, did you looked at least the the user who was reverting my changes did the same thing? All was ok until he came there, that measn that we gave the official figures of Canada, 131,000, and we wrote the estimations of 400,000. Of these changes everybody agreed, and we arrived at the common idea to let it on that way. I suggest you to contact the other Romanian user that participated to our agreement. The user who was changing that he gave the figures of mixed and single ancestry, but no article of an ethnic group on wikipedia, (ex. Poles, Russians, Italians) does represents their figures on that way, so I think it would be wise to do like the others, right? And please trust me that I will not let him to edit what we all decided and if he continues, I will contact the other Romanian administrators to do something. Thanks a lot ! Regards, NorbertArthur 30 March 2006

[edit] Rms125a@hotmail.com's RFC

Hi, I was just over at Rms125a@hotmail.com's RFC, and I noticed that you'd endorsed with the comment "Very difficult user", but you'd placed the endorsement under the (so-far blank) Response section instead of endorsing the summary just above. I assumed it was an error, and thought you'd like to know. - dharmabum 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extending WP:NPA

SV, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Extending_the_WP:NPA_policy? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Please stop the mindless reverting. There's little support for your position at Israeli-occupied territories, so the reverting is simply disruptive. As for Ben Dunkelman, your insinuation that imply that I "plagiarize phrases from the internet" is simply false. Please do no remove well sourced material from the article. Many thanks, Regards, Huldra

Stop quoting my messages to you back word for word. It's childish. As for your plagiarism, I've put an example of it on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Not when they fit.
And tell me truly: did you or didn´t you think that I had added the words "deeply attached to his Jewish roots" ? Why, why why, if you think I plagarized a page on October 4, 2005, do you warn me 6 months(!) later?? Lol! Talking about being an adult, Slim, how about admitting that you made a mistake? Hmmm? Regards, Huldra 01:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am talking of this, which you left on Talk:Ben Dunkelman 08:03 30 March 2006, under the heading "Plagiarism": "Also, I noticed some phrases in the version I reverted that seemed to be lifted directly from some websites e.g. "deeply attached to his Jewish roots." Please do not lift material from the Web without quoting or attributing it. "
Just afterwards, 09:01, 30 March 2006, you left this on my talk-page: "As for Ben Dunkelman, [.. ], we're not allowed to simply plagiarize phrases from the internet, ."..
So, I repeat my question: did you or didn´t you think that I had added the words "deeply attached to his Jewish roots"? It should be a very easy question to answer. And I´m sorry, but it is not possible to ask this question without quoting you! As for the al-Hamad story, I will reply on Dunkelmans talk-page, (as it was raised there) about my "plagiarism". The facts remain: I had liftet nothing from the internet to the Ben Dunkelman article. (That other editors had done so before me is hardly my fault.) And everything I added to the article was sourced in the book I gave references to. That I might not have given references in the right format inside the article: ah, well: that is a charge which is probably true. But I did give a reference at the end of the article to the book I used. Regards, Huldra 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted text should not be included

Copyright violation and infringement is a very serious matter. It is inappropriate to simply "cite" complete theft of significant chunks of this article. Lokiloki 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. All of the passages I deleted were verbatim from the link I provided. I do not have time to rewrite much of the entire content of this page from a biased source. From the copyright warning: "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch." Lokiloki 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
For example, you restored this sentence: "Improvements in medicine have largely contributed to the increase in the Arab population, as life expectancy has increased 27 years since 1948." That is directly from [24].
Same with this: "The most common health-related causes of death are heart disease and cancer. This could be a result of the large number of Arabs who smoke. Approximately one half of all Arab men smoke cigarettes. Diabetes is also common among the Arab population with 14% diagnosed with the disease in 2000."
And your "tidying up" also included a direct infringement: "Approximately one half of all Arab men smoke cigarettes. Diabetes is also common among the Arab population with 14% diagnosed with the disease in 2000."
Before you assume bad faith on my part, please check the citations. These sections need to be completely rewritten from scratch, not just reworded.
Lokiloki 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have time to rewrite copyrighted content. Feel free to rewrite it. It is not disruptive to delete copyrighted content, as that is the process that is elucidated under the various WP Copyright pages. Lokiloki 01:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the content in that article is copyrighted. It is inappropriate to simply change a few words here and there to overcome copyright -- that is still a violation. Lokiloki 01:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe your copy-editing of copyrighted content is inappropriate: the copyright is still there. It is insufficient and legally indefensible to simply change a few words here and there, as you are doing. This is still a violation of copyright, and presumably the copyright notification I have applied to the page is appropriate in this instance.
If you feel the retention of large chunks of copyrighted content is permissible, please discuss on the talk page before simply re-inserting.
Please review the notice of copyright by the Israeli government at [25]. The Copyright Infringement notice indicates that users who continually post copyrighted content can be permanantly banned: please can you instruct me on how I can file these charges against such violators?
Lokiloki 01:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted

All of the sections I deleted were taken directly from the referenced sites. There appears to currently be no copyrighted content in the article. You can check the deletion history to find those sections which copied, in whole, from the referenced pages. Please remember that it is legally insufficient to simply replace a few words here and there. These sections should be rewritten from scratch, as the WP:Copyright infringement article states. It also seems unbalanced to include so much information directly from the Israeli government. Lokiloki 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadell's proposed remedy

Just thought I'd make you aware of the existence of User:Quadell/remedy. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (rv see WP:CITE)

Care to be specific? WAS 4.250 03:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synarchism

Too bad both accounts weren't blocked indefinitely. BTW, I discovered the source of the information in the disputed paragraph on privatization hot off the press from in the "March 31, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review." Rohatyn, Shultz, Cheney 'Privatization' Scheme To Wreck U.S. National Security I was correct all along; the LaRoucheies do claim that the Middlebury conference was a synarchist conspiracy involving Rohatyn, and that's why they're so adamant about keeping the paragraph: "On Oct. 9, 2004, two leading American figures in the International Synarchy, George Shultz and Felix Rohatyn, teamed up in an assault upon the national sovereignty and national security of the United States." 172 | Talk 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, HK has made a major edit of noosphere. [26]] I'm sure that some LaRouche material worked its way in the edit, as the term appears in lots of LaRouche nonsense. [27] But I'm in no position to revert, as I know next to nothing about the subject. Will you be able to take a look? 172 | Talk 06:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have rarely found an edit by HK that didn't, in some way, further some theory traceable back to LaRouche. Fortunately, most of the LaRouche material is on the web so research is easy. I did a little checking and found that Rohaytan is one of their obsessions. He's a financier who stole their idea for a "New Bretton Woods" only he got it wrong and didn't credit LaRouche (Cf SDI). I'm sure there's something available about Noosphere or its proponents. -Will Beback 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is-- check this Google search of LaRouche's website for "noosphere." BTW, LaRouche's obsession with Rohatyn obviously stems from anti-Semitism. Although LaRouche's followers seem to avoid explicit Jew-baiting, the way in which they describe the foreign "species" to which Rohatyn-- a Holocaust survivor-- echoes classical anti-Semitism: Most Americans, even among those who imagine that they have known him for many years, lack any understanding of who or what Felix Rohatyn is. Why? Because Rohatyn is neither an American, nor does he resemble anything which more than very few living Americans have ever knowingly encountered. Not only does he belong to a species—the European Synarchist—with which they have not the slightest acquaintance. Worse, their ignorance of European history, or, what is the same thing, the dumbed-down, flat-earth versions of history which they have swallowed, leave no room for the even possible existence of such a species as Rohatyn's. [28] 172 | Talk 08:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wells and cyanide

I think you make some good points. Either way, I am not too hung up about the issue one way or the other. Lokiloki 10:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Arab transference from Israel

Please take a look at Talk:Israeli Arab transference from Israel (and the article itself), basically Lokiloki, the article's author, asserts that Avigdor Liberman's current political agenda is to forcibly transfer Israeli Arabs from Acre, Sakhnin, etc. to the Palestinian Authority. Now, we all know Liberman doesn't love Arabs, but with all fairness, he has abandoned that campaign for a more moderate approach a long time ago. The 5 or 6 sources used to support this claim are also questionable, as they are all opinion pieces, and there was even an article written by Uri Avneri (the archrival of Arutz 7, so to say). By the way, I'm asking several users to look at that page, so please don't feel I'm insencere because I C&Ped the paragraph ;) -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 10:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_Arab_transference_from_Israel

[edit] Technical question

I attempted to block this new user Izula wow (wow was my criteria) and it kept coming up in the box as "Izula+wow" 3 times with a red error message that there was no such user. I removed the + and blocked it as "Izula wow" and it took it that way. Have you ever seen anything like that and if so what caused it? I am wondering if maybe it was bot attack and if it was really blocked.--Dakota ~ ° 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you can see what I mean when you hit the block button here.[29].--Dakota ~ ° 16:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Hi, you did some work on this article last year. Perhaps you could have another look at it now. I'm trying to get people to agree on some kind of consensus on the talk page, but I think I need some help. I'd understand it if you don't want to get involved, the discussion is starting to make my head spin. Cheers, jacoplane 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Romanians

Slim, I'm not at all happy that you blocked and I assure that I will contest this. I'm accusing you of blocking me for nothing, because I was reverting the page how it was before, and I will talk with the other administrators to see what can I do with you. I'm also objecting the thing that you favorised the user Jayig, because he too he reverted 3 times in 24 hours what me I wrote, and you didn't blocked him. For those things and acts you don't deserve at the administratorship, and I wil try to stop you. NorbertArthur 31 March 2006

Actually I will try to make the truth with the help of all the users that participated there. And please stop threating me that the next block will be longer, because we'll see who will win.

[edit] blocks

Please elaborate on your rationale for blocking User:Zadil. You stated on his talk page: "I warned you on March 21 against posting any more of those quotes, and I have therefore blocked you temporarily from editing. As Jayjg says above, future disruption will incur longer blocks each time." You warned him on March 21, I assume, for posting POV quotes against talk page consensus (which I agree he has done). But then you block him. The timing is a bit strange, to begin with - you blocked him immediately after he made an edit to Israeli Arabs, before he could rationalize his edits on the talk page (which he has done, and to which there has been no response yet). So obviously, you didn't block him there for making edits against consensus, because between his edit and your block, nobody said anything on the article's talk page or anything relevant to that topic on his talk page. It was his first edit to that article (as far as I can see) and there was no "consensus" against his edit before you blocked him (or even now, for that matter).

So I assume you blocked him for the numerous POV edits since your March 21 warning. Now the only thing anywhere near a "warning" he received between March 21 and your recent block was the edits by Doom127, who was simply cautioning him from the same side of the issue. Now if obvious IP vandals get 2-4 warnings... then why didn't you (or anyone else, for that matter - again, Jayjg's warning was for a completely different issue) engage in some sort of discussion on the issue, or at least give him a more immediate warning? You warned him 10 days ago then you blocked him out of the blue, hours after his most recent relevant "infraction." 10 days is a long time - after all, even the 3 revert rule is only applicable for 24 hour periods.

Now say you have a reasonable rationale for this (after all, one must assume good faith, right?). If I take 10 quotes out of the Bible, highlight random sections that are... how did you term it... "provocative"... and put it on my user page... I guess that's enough to earn a revert? Or 10 quotes out of my high school biology book that mention evolution? That would be provocative to some practicing Christians, I assume... as provocative as a Communist userbox, for which there is no consensus to remove from userpages... – ugen64 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've been blocked in the 72.14.192.48 block on User:Zadil. My IP address is 72.14.192.14 and I was hoping to get some editing done tonight, I especially need to do some stuff related to an ArbCom case, in my role as a member of AMA, and also was hoping to do some vandalism reversions. --Wisden17 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad?

Hey, I noticed this article: Arbonne International it seems like a bit of an advertisement. Sumergocognito 01:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photos w/o consent

Sorry to bug you twice in one day. I noticed that the article Chatswood High School a school in Australia has the names of faculty and their photos posted. Does that create a privacy problem? Sumergocognito 08:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blu

Just to clarify, I'm not defending him. I was the one who extended his block from a week to a month when he continued to call you, and others, trolls. However, being accused of being anti-semitic is serious, especialy when your real name is involved, he should have a right of reply. If he is a bigot, that will become more evident. I felt it better to open up a small channel of communication rather than having a cycle of socks and blocks. I condone nothing I can see on the WR trollfest. --Doc ask? 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I find that the "edit count tool" is not working on your page. Please update the same with this link: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=SlimVirgin&dbname=enwiki_p. And, how are you? --Bhadani 17:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Done with Wikipedia

Hello SlimVirgin. Suffice it to say, I am done with Wikipedia. I do not intend to carry out my disputes any further here; nor do I intend to even continue to contribute under my main account (whether or not I decide later to come back as a sockpuppet and make legitimate edits I have not decided), even if that account is ever unblocked. I don't feel any further need to defend myself to you, but to suffice it to say that I am not an anti-Semite, Neo-Nazi, Nazi-sympathyzer, or racist of any kind. You can read my response at my talk page. It's in the history, since an admin-troll saw fit to hide the discussion and protect the page, which in turn led to an escalated dispute... you can read about that on WR or on WP:ANI. In fact, I'm quite sure you're dying to get over there and express support for the ban from all projects that your fellow abusive admin Kelly Martin has proposed.

Anyway, on to the point - I'm not going to be back on Wikipedia, at least not on an identifiable account. I would like an apology from you for the attacks and accusations you directed at me. If you decide that you will oblige me in this, you may email me. If not, well, so be it. User:Blu Aardvark at 72.160.87.87 14:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/l/i/User_talk%7ESlimVirgin_archive27_c31a.html"