User talk:SlimVirgin/archive30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] On expediting multiple article renaming to be official

Hi, ebook vs. eBook and similar articles have the same wikinaming clash versus outside world usage clash, and a category move/rename vote are all boxed up in this matter. If you can take a peek, especially where I suggest we use you as a 'referee' on holding an expedited official vote on these matters, and give us some guidance, 'twould be good and timely! Thanks, FrankB 20:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =Uncited Assertions

Slim, you have a large number of assertions without citation on the Animal Rights page. I'm sure you will want to document all those, since you have recently demonstrated such passion for citations on the Martin Luther page. Right? --Ptmccain 21:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology & Withdrawal

My apology and withdrawal: [1]. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[2] — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WCityMike incident

Hi SlimVirgin, I am glad you guys kissed and made up, I am actually a little teary eyed over the whole thing :) j/k. Anyways, I was wondering, since I didn't see it addressed or just missed it in all the smoke. Did you revert edits by an anonymous IP that you assumed to be a banned user based on the IP's editing style or was there other proof that the two were the same persons? Just curious, TIA!--Tom 23:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like a real charmer. It seems that Wiki bends over backwords to accommadate folks and NOT ban people. Again, I am glad WCity cooled off and there was another Happy Wiki ending :) Cheers! --Tom 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas

Don't add protection tags to articles if there hasn't been vandalism. --Marielleh 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:"Blood for goods" proposal

Hi Slim: Couldn't help but notice your new creation of Template:"Blood for goods" proposal, as well as all its realated articles, and wanted to extend my admiration to you for your interest in this heretofore much-neglected topic. Congratulations on a job well done. Hopefully your work will yield good results! IZAK 08:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Hoffa

I'm not sure why you decided to protect the Jimmy Hoffa page. Someone vandalized it, someone else immediately reverted it, then for some reason you reverted the reversion back to the vandalized version, banned someone, reverted your own reversion and protected the page. It's just kind of confusing. 204.69.40.7 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt

I'd like to invite you to review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt. This is not a request for your endorsement, simply a request for your participation in the discussion. Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christinam

Definitely a sock? Good lord what a headache she's been. Marskell 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You might check User:Rkrichbaum. This is an odd one, and I don't want to be conspiritorial, asking to look up people all over the place. But he's a weird sort of doppelganger for Christinam on Anti-Americanism. She avoids talk and makes radical edits to the article; he avoids the article and places tendentious talk posts defending her edits. They aren't intuitively the same person, but their "tandemness" is hard to miss. If one is in Dallas and the other is in Denmark, then its just the bad luck of having two POV newbies at once. Marskell 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of WP:SOCK

I noticed that you reverted WP:SOCK to the pre-rewrite version. Could you please explain your reasoning for this? While it appears that some sock puppets may have edited recently, the rewrite was written by User:Dixjtra, and I had thought it had broad support. As it is, this reversion confuses the terminology again and removes mention of WP:SUSPSOCK, among other problems. Would it be possible for the page to be changed to the initial rewrite, instead of the pre-rewrite version? Are my edits a problem (under the old terminology, I am considered a sock puppet)? --Philosophus ^T 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the old policy, any alternate account, legitimate or illegitimate, is considered a sock puppet, so I, as an alternate account for privacy reasons, am considered a sock puppet. I had thought that Dixjtra had done the rewrite. Is he a sock puppet? --Philosophus ^T 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marielleh

What is the correct fast way of undoing all of "Marielleh" damage ? Zeq 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking this user. User:Christinam has engaged in many frustrating and uncooperative edits as well. Tfine80 21:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zhongchan Dao

I know you care about sources and NOR, can you help make some sense here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhongchan Dao. kthxbye. SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StubHub, again

Hi -- we have sockpuppetry on this page, I think. Thanks! Ben-w 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the content of the change isn't problematic per se, but it's clearly a sockpuppet of a user who has been banned for mucking with this article in precisely this way. In its own right, it's absurdly banal information -- the fact that people move from one job to another in the US tech economy is not notable or interesting. So by maintaining the change, the sock-puppet of a banned user with some weird axe to grind succeeds in advancing his intensely personal agenda. Ben-w 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LISTS

Care to comment on this? Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Upgrading_to_guideline., If that proposed guideline does not work as such, can we address the main issues on other related guidelines? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving?

Regarding this [3] -- where did it get moved to? -- Anomicene 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony's block of Nathan

Oh trust me, I discussed it with him on IRC before releasing it, and he had no problems with the unblock -- Tawker 07:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About your revert of WP:SOCK

Please mind the WP:CON. I have reverted your revert of WP:SOCK. If you wish to revert back, please discuss it first here. Thanks. --Dijxtra 14:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I am sure you will know better than me where this should go in wiki:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3251756,00.html

Zeq 18:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2

Please do not fool around with other people's comments on talk pages. Thanks, Ashibaka tock 23:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An appology

I'd like to appologise for being rude and inflamatory yesterday. I invested quite an amount of my time in a rewrite of WP:SOCK and was shocked to see it all go down the drain. But I understand now that the reverting of the rewrite was not an unilateral action by one or two admins (which I didn't understand at the time) and that the revert has the community support whereas the rewrite I executed doesn't. It was therefore my mistake not informing the community in proper way. I would like to appologise for not proposing the policy change the right way and for being rude to people who reverted it yesterday. I will now take a few days to cool off and will then try to propose some changes in policy and to create a broad concensus. I hope that the behaviour I presented yesterday will not influence my proposal as this is the first (and I sencirely hope the last) time I lost my head over something on Wikipedia. --Dijxtra 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amibidhrohi on the Hamas article

Could you please offer your opinion on Amibidhrohi's behavior either in the corresponding conversation on the Hamas talk page, or elsewhere if you feel it more appropriate? Thanks. s»abhorreo»i 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IZAK

Slim, why do you think that the title/priviledge 'admin' gives you guys the unilateral power to decide wp policy about when an argument is over or not? What part of wp policy gives you this impression? There's one thing I learnt virtually from the beginning, some people are on wp 24hrs a day, and expect everyone else to be on the ball as well. If you're away for a day, you're in danger of dragging skeletons out of the closet. Abusive? Yeah, okay. Like IZAK said, if you don't know what it means, when in doubt stay away. --Shuki 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] settlement/neighbourhood clarification

Hi SlimVirgin, I saw your rv on Pisgat Ze'ev and I'd like to know what consenus, if any, would allow me to maintain that position with respect to the other neighbourhoods constructed in the parts of Jerusalem captured by Israel in 1967 and annexed in 1980. Since I raised the issue on Talk:Har Homa, I was met with the [somewhat expected] result of finding the other prominent neighborhoods (i.e. Gilo (neighborhood) and French Hill) being labeled settlements. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3-RR

Is it a revert if you insert text to an article in such a way that it changes the meaning of a sentence? For example, if the sentence is:

"Jesus is God"

and someone writes:

"Jesus is not God"

and this has never been said before, have they made a revert anyway, because it "undoes" the work of another editor? - Drogo Underburrow 01:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Following your comments on Talk:Hamas regarding balance in article intro's and the relative level of attention they should give to current events, you might be interested in taking a quick glance at this article. I have made some comments on the talk page, for what it's worth. Palmiro | Talk 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update on RichardMalter and Bi-Digital O-Ring Test

As I just noted on WP:AN/3RR, RichardMalter has now reverted your reversion of Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and responded to your warning on his talk page. --Philosophus ^T 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special:Contributions/Incorrect

Please see user's very non NPOV edits above (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Special:Contributions.2FIncorrect). Arniep 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In case you missed it

[4] may be of interest. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A good query, but...

Wikipedia:Editing policy pages is going to be mess of people adding options. Try "yes, in general, plus suggestion" and "no, in general" first. Then take the few most cited suggestions and have a run-off. (I'd say). Marskell 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I inserted two headlines to emphasize the either/or. You know, six months(!) will actually exclude numerous admins... Marskell 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need Slim of choosing many options. That would make things confusing. Cheers -- Szvest 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Brave girl. Somebody had to do it. Based on project demographics, I don't see it succeeding, but it's worth discussing. Many good ideas will never be implimented here, but such is the system we are in. Keep up the good work :). - Taxman ^Talk 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this is definately not the way I'd ever want to see wikipedia to go. This is a terrible plan. No matter that people are messing up the project space, I still don't want to limit the work of good people who are there as well. Don't take the wiki out of wikipedia, please. Kim Bruning 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage

Please do me a favour and unprotect it. SeanBlack is pretending not to know the difference between harmless fun and personal attacks and has protected it to try to upset me. As you know, he has a personal problem with me. I know you don't like to undo other admins' actions but I am asking you to do it as a personal favour because I doubt he will want to wheelwar a respected member of the community. Feel free to admonish Sean at the same time. He's way too fond of bullying other editors and needs to grow up, learn this is not the schoolyard and learn to behave properly around adults.Grace Note 23:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit to my userpage. However, I am not going to be bullied out of having my userpage the way I want it by someone who has a personal problem with me, particularly not Sean. There is no personal attack in comparing someone with a fictional character for fun and I don't see why I should change my page just because some bully or other orders me to. This is supposed to be fun after all, and we are all friends here. Losing sight of that is a lot worse than any "personal attack". I've noted that I will remove the link if Dave Gerard has a problem with it. It's my belief, which I actually state on my userpage, ironically, that if a person feels attacked, then you must consider your remark to be an attack and set it to rights. But a remark does not become an attack just because someone who is spoiling for a fight chooses to claim it is. -- GN.

[edit] question about this edit

Hi Slim,

Maybe this was agreed upon before [5] but it is not accurate nor give the complete picture as to the nature of the area. I am sure you are aware of the tunnels and the operation of "militants" (what ever you want to call them) in the area. Zeq 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

see question again below. tnx. Zeq 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Kastner edit

Hi,

I was just wondering why you erased my edits regarding the Kastner. I edited as follows:

The court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel which exonerated Kastner of most charges in a 3-2 decision that was sharply critical of the lower-court judge. However, all five judges upheld the lower court decision regarding the "criminal and perjurous manner" in which Kasztner had "without justification" intervened on behalf of several Nazi war criminals. ([6] p. 50)

(where [6] was a reference to Linn's book "Escaping Auschwitz, a culture of forgetting").

Thanks,

Escamoso 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

Hi SlimVirgin: I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote of no confidence

I was going to put a really angry message at village pump, but fortunately remembered on time to first take things to talk.

At the moment, there's a couple of people on "policy/guideline/essay patrol" (the triple wording there already shows that we are deperately understaffed, else we'd fix the silly subdivision). Adding yet even more rules won't do it, in fact I predict it will make things worse.

Adding people would help out, but thanks to your massive vote of no confidence by creating Wikipedia:Editing policy pages, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to recruit more people again. :-(

Perhaps you could help salvage this situation? Or is your confidence truely that low? (And if so, how can we help restore it?)

Kim Bruning 09:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't restricting the pages as SlimVirgin proposes actually help this? (Not that I agree with that, but we do seem to be understaffed, at least with certain kinds of patrollers....) Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 10:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Restricting them will provide a false sense of security, which will make editors even less likely to patrol the pages. But this question should probably be moved to the appropriate talk page. --Philosophus ^T 10:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it hurts a lot, because often it's the new and enthousiastic people who come up with the great new ideas on how to fix things. Adding rules places restrictions on who can edit and when. This drastically cuts down on the people we can recruit to help out with patrols. Kim Bruning 20:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

<replying to slimvirgin> Alright, I can't be mad at you if you don't get what I'm mad about.

I saw you on msn earlier, but got no response.

Much of the guidelines were written by people who, at the time, were new and enthusiastic. Currently I keep getting help from new and enthusiastic people all the time. After a while the foundation or otrs or committees or what have you come and steal them from me ( They know a good thing when they see it :-P ), and I have to start over. That's understandable, but still somewhat frustrating, even though I'm proud to be able to work with these people. :-)

Your proposal makes it much harder for me to find new people to replace those who go on to other tasks or leave. And that is REALLY frustrating.

It's especially annoying because wikipedia conventions (policy/rules/essays) etc, are still a mess and much is an utter disgrace to wikipedia. It needs a lot of work, and it is already slow plodding work to even get a single line altered, let alone actually fix entire pages. Making it yet even harder to work on the wikipedia conventions is the very very last thing we want to do at the moment.

In such a large environment, once you have started an initiative, it is very hard to unstart it. As you acted in all innocence, I can't very well be angry at you. That does not take away that I am rather displeased with the current situation. Kim Bruning 21:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of WP:Civil on Talk:Evolution

Hi Slimvirgin I have recently been trying to participate in a discussion on the Evolution talk page. It seems, hoever, that my views are in contradiction to the beliefs of some of the editors there, and they have repeatdly tried to silence me by resorting to personal attacks. Examples:

User:Slrubenstein

• maybe do not understand science in general
• think there is still value to being able to tell ignorant dogmatics like Sangil that their points are addressed in the article
• Now, Sangil may never be educated by the article, but smarter or less dogmatic readers who listen to creationist (or "ID") arguments because they are very open-minded or naive may indeed be educated by our article

User:WAS 4.250

• You display no such knowledge. You display gross ignorance. Who gave you the degree? Genesisversity

User:Plumbago

• he was countering your ridiculous statement

thx1138

• That's complete BS
• You posted a blatant lie. What kind of response did you expect?

User:Graft

• Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it
• I was going to do what WAS did and insult Sangil's education, but no need

These edits are taken from Talk:evolution#Kinds and Talk:evolution#Misconceptions_sections

My request is that being an administrator, you step in to stop this rather crude bullying, ans allow all views to be expressed equally (as long as they are expressed in a civil manner). i don't know what form of intervention would be preferable, but i feel that the current situation is not acceptable. I also beleive that User:Slrubenstein's attempt to "educate" users is rather problematic, and is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in regard to WP not being a soapbox.

I have posted a warning to these users regarding WP:Civil, which has been ignored.

Note: I have also posted this message on User:Jayjg's talk page. Thanks -Sangil 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ELF

An anon is labelling the ELF as a terrorist group. I'm near breaking 3rr on this, so I need someone else to go there and help me out. I think that we should go with the same consensus as on the ALF page, although there does not seem to have been any discussion on the ELF page of this issue yet. Still...we don't even label al-Qaeda a terrorist group. The Ungovernable Force 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Hi, I did think that everyone was meant to archive their talk page but I don't know where the specific policy/guideline is if it exists. There was a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Blanking_of_messages_on_User_talk_pages_should_not_be_considered_vandalism which resulted in removal of warnings not being considered vandalism but most people in the discussion still seemed to think it good practice to archive. Arniep 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please restore my message to GraceNote, I created the archives in good faith. Arniep 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi he did actually say he would consider making them. Arniep 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Editing policy pages

Hi Slim. We seem to be close to, if not actually in, an edit war over the oppose votes (of which I probably cast the first to start with). I tried to make my reasons clear in the edit summaries, but there is more time and space here. If we decide we want to discard the oppose votes in the end, it's a trivial operation to go over them after the poll closes and discard (or, even better, just ignore) them. If we remove them now, then someone else opposes, we remove them again, someone new opposes... and then in the end we decide that we do want to look at both kinds of votes, it becomes a real pain in the ass to go through all the revisions and collect the votes again. So I think the prudent thing is to leave them in for now. And please WP:AGF. Take a look at my contributions if you think I'm here to make trouble....--Stephan Schulz 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Assistance

Hi. I'm not certain this is the appropriate way to advise of this sort of situation, but it seems to be, I think, and so here I am (so to speak). This RichardMalter person is at it again in the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test entry. Any advice or assistance appreciated. Fucyfre 06:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, as a new Wikiperson, that this process may prove, at least for me, illustrative. RichardMalter is now happily turning the BDORT entry, in the name of neutrality, into an advertisement for the wonders of the BDORT. I'm new, as I've indicated, at this process on Wikipedia, but it seems to me suggestive of the dilemmas inherent in many cooperative enterprises. Fucyfre 13:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how Dr Omura's own journal, published from his apartment, promoting his 'researches' is a reliable source. Am I missing something? Fucyfre 14:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The dilemma, here, and I would think this comes up a good deal in such situations, is that an adherent, effectively a true believer, sees abundant 'objective' evidence. In this particular case it would seem one is dealing with an accolyte of Omura's, based on his page's link to one of Omura's two principal sites. He happily, and with, I suspect limitless devotion, will likely 'improve' the entry – Yoshiaki Omura's entry as well, now - to meet his notion of objectivity and his notion of reliable sources – meaning those of Omura. That, at least, is my take. Fucyfre 14:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted on the Bi-Digital O-Ring Discussion page, the journal in question is in fact simply a self-published enterprise. This entire enterprise is infinitely self-referential. Fine, if it didn' contribute in its delusions to the suffering documented in the NZ authorities report. Fucyfre 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm just dropping by to say I've given up on the BDORT entry as I've just noted in the Discussion section. It may sound mere petulance, but while I'm certainly prepared to engage in discussion, I literally cannot spare time to engage in endless, mindless combat with a true believer. Whether that is my limitation or that of the process in this Wiki space I am not prepared to judge. I certainly think it unfortunate in the extreme that Wiki seems readily put to use by adherents of a belief structure which clearly, by any external, reasonably objective assessmeent, is pseudo-scientific and puts people's lives at risk, as per the findings of the NZ medical commission, the only external, credible body to have evaluated the matter. I have no interest in endless, pointless, combat. I will cede the field to those who do. Fucyfre 00:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I noticed you removed the AfD tags from various pages nominated for deletion by User:PZFUN, presumably because they are bad faith nominations. In that case, wouldn't it also be a good idea to close the AfD discussions for those articles here? David Sneek 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When you close AfDs

When you close AfDs please remember to add the {{subst:ab}} tag at the bottom.--blue520 15:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD closures

I'd like an explanation for why you closed my AFDs. It shows an incredble lack of good faith. I am deeply disturbed. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why you bulk closed those articles for deletion either. I'm sitting here scratching my head over that. PZFUN is a fairly ok person most of the time, and checking some of the articles... well... they were short. While keeping per default doesn't do much harm, it still leaves poor PZFUN wondering what he did wrong. (And it also looks slightly strange to speedy keep an AFD that says "delete delete delete".)

Soooo, I'm slightly puzzeled. Does this have anything to do with IZAKs recent errr... spam-campaign (for want of a better word?). Can you tell me more? Kim Bruning 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your current Ignore All Rules closure of the Articles for Deletion. This is nescesary to keep the peace. In the mean time, PZFUNs actions appear to have technically been correct, at least, for the random sample of articles I looked at. We could have been looking at different random samples of course.

In the end , wikipedia is an encyclopedia governed by NPOV, and it does seem at first blush to some degree that a group of editors are banding together and trying to push their POV. This would be bad. Though, this could also be an incorrect early assesment. I'm investigating further, and I'll ask more people to look in.

Kim Bruning 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of those articles were worthy of discussion, at least. For example, Liverpool Jewish Students Society. How could that be a speedy keep?--Nydas 16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bulk actions beget bulk actions ^^;;

If you like, maybe you can undo the speedy if you like, or take it to Deletion review. Seeing the circumstances, any of those options should be ok. Kim Bruning 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, answered. I do think you should have discussed this more with PZFUN before immediately taking it to AN/I. Since the situation is somewhat volatile I would have preferred to keep the incident under wraps. 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also put a notice at the articles for deletion page, so that a 3rd party does indeed do a review, as you are suggesting.

In the mean time, you wouldn't happen to have skype or msn or so available, would you? Kim Bruning 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of these clearly seem to deserve more discussion than speedy keep. I hadn't seen your note on the the articles for deletion page and have just noticed it above - will go and read that now. Dlyons493 Talk 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PZFUN leaving

Hello, despite our coming to an agreement, several editors have apparently taken it upon themselves to yell at PZFUN anyway :-(. Even though policy says he's entirely in the right.

In part this is a consequence of your posting on AN/I, instead of resolving the situation quietly. Would you care to help clean up this situation some more?

Thanks! Kim Bruning 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further deletions by PZFUN

Hi SlimVirgin: Here is a list of other articles relating to Jews and Judaism that User:PZFUN had nominated for deletion, without their being some serious discussion among Judaism editors if these actions are in any way justified. Any Judaism editor that has seen these pages has voted to keep them. Thanks. IZAK 20:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Sholom Day Camp
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Tel Noar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Star Camps
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitz (sorry, this one was just zapped without notice and it could happen to others! well, now it's back but the name of the article was changed to Amitiz, so something is technically not right behind the scenes.)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Galil
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Gesher
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Massad
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Miriam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Tawonga
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Yavneh
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurojews

We have already seen those, IZAK. There's a massive row. They're all from: Category:Judaism_stubs.

Sorry to say so, but according to policy, they need to be cleaned up, else someone else will come along and nominate them again later. Kim Bruning 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kim: Many people now are voting to keep those articles (except for the one that was snatched away now, unethically, considering the situation.) Nice hearing from you again, but here is my point again, if they need clean-up then either the original editors need to be informed and given ample time or alternately contact other Jewish/Judaism editors who have contributed to those articles. It has taken YEARS for many of these articles or stubs to be written and compiled, a very laborious job, by good editors who know something about the subject. You CANNOT expect that overnight, any admin will come along and expect that within hours or days somehow magically thousands of articles about NOTABLE topics will either be improved (which they don't even care to want) or suddenly wham NOTABLE topics will be deleted just because some people enjoy the fun of doing nominations for deletion. Remember, it's a lot easier to delete than it is to write, and you may be losing good information, then you will have people reinventing the wheel as those articles will reappear soon enough as it is. Nominations must also be done in good faith, as I am sure you understand the writing of these articles and stubs was done in good faith. We do not have enough editors who have the time and the English skills to touch up all the articles that sometimes do verge on Yinglish which nevertheless are crucial to the over-all subject-matter of Jews and Judaism. Many long-time editors are aware of this problem and we have been trying to correct it as best we can, but we are few in number, yet we have chosen NOT to delete, but rather to improve as time permits. I hope that no editors will add fuel to the flames of trying to perform a "virtual Holocaust" of NOTABLE Jews and Judaism (by Jews' and Judaism's standards) topics on Wikipedia which will only enrage all Judaism editors. People are getting impatient with shoddy writing, very nice, but it will take years to build Wikipedia, and no good will come of looking for quick fixes by the rise of the mass "New Deletionism". IZAK 22:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Virtual holocaust" indeed. I am appalled at the level this discussion has sunk to. Back to the days of yore with usenet flamewars.

Very well. As you wish.

I invoke Godwin's law. This discussion is over. You lose.

Sorry, you had a lot of good points. But I can't let your behaviour slide. Kim Bruning 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim: Please stop playing the "good cop-bad cop thought police" here, and please stick to the debate at hand. Get used to the way many Jews think and speak, sorry if you take it in the wrong way. IZAK 00:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would second Kim - "virtual Holocaust" is going far too far, nauseatingly so. Especially since, as has been mentioned, PZFUN is part-Jewish. Also, please reflect on what you wrote above, "NOTABLE Jews and Judaism (by Jews' and Judaism's standards)" - what may be notable to Jews, or to any other follower of a religion, does not equate to what is notable for Wikipedia; that, I think, might perhaps be the misconception that you are operating upon. I also cannot see how the articles that PZFUN nominated could have possibly have taken years to write, as you assert above, as many are improperly sourced, POV, badly written, and often not properly fleshed out (either too short, or not comprehensible to those who aren't cognoscenti) nor that the process of creating them could have been "laborious". You write as if the articles PZFUN nominated for deletion achieved some gold standard of encyclopaedic quality, which they didn't. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas: Wikipedia = it's editors! As you well know with Scientology you can't have any Tom-Dick-and-Harry tell you that any old disciple/s of L. Ron Hubbard was notable, it takes PEOPLE, flesh and blood ones, like you and me and others, to use their brains and based on their intimate knowledge of the subject to decide if articles that are written up are worthy of merit and deserve being kept so that they will get better with time. Let's say someone says that an E-meter is no better than a bunch of wires attached to a battery and should be deleted because it's a pseudoscience contraption, now who better than a HUMAN BEING who knows about the subject to decide if what has been written is true or false, accurate or junk. I have nominated my fair share of Judaism articles for deletion, and even lost those votes sometimes, but when I do so I base my moves on deep KNOWLEDGE of the field and not on some shallow notion that I dig up by merely Googling. You and I, as editors, are Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not just a disembodied abstract notion flying around in outer space. Similarly, Googling will never be an absolute substitute for true scholarship, and over the years every group of editors in every area gets to know who those are that have CREDIBILITY as editors. Many Judaism editors monitor Judaism articles every day and we know when something is not deserving to be kept. VERY OFTEN it's deleted or redirected or merged, but I will be blunt: This new threatened "wave of terror" of the "New Deletionism" as exhibited by PZFUN and some others will not work and will backfire. You may shut me up, but you will not shut up every Judaism editor now or in the future who will reintroduce these articles simply because it's NOTABLY attached to the subject. Judaism, or any subject for that matter, is not what Wikipedia says it is, it is what its adherenets believe and know it to be and they often practice it as well. You may as well get used to that, just as we accept that you may know a thing or two about Scientology (even though we have no proof of anything), so have respect for us as well! No-one is saying there is any "gold standard" for anything! The articles were not perfect. Often articles about notable people and subjects are written by amateurs, but that is what Wikipedia is about, anyone can edit -- and at the same time the more experienced editors will see to it that eventually everything gets sorted out. The articles in question were not marked for deletion because their veracity was doubted, so why victimise them en masse. There are so many other hundreds of thousands of articles to choose from, why dwell on Judaism-connected ones that will invarioubly breed controversy. That is just the nature of the beast. As you know 90% of articles and stubs need improvement not just Jews and Judaism ones. IZAK 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The "virtual holocaust" comment is, indeed, quite offensive. Homey 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Offensive to who? When almost fifty articles about NOTABLE rabbis (themsleves survivors of the REAL Holocaust) are voted for destruction that is already a mini-virtual Holocaust -- did you miss the word "virtual"? . When you are threatening thousands of articles with demise, considering the relative scarcity of articles relating to Jews and Judaism it's, yes, a "virtual Holocaust". That is how it comes across. PZFUN's half-Jewishness is not a factor and has never been. Am I the only one objecting to this mass deletionism?Don't you see how many others are disgusted by the prejudice? You are losing the arguments so you resort to acting indignant instead of staying on message. What a pity. IZAK 23:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, since the Amitz article is actually about a chapter of a larger organization it would seem that an AFD is in order. Instead of lobbying for speedy keep why not argue your case on the AFD page?Homey 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK: After being told once, I think that repeating your insults goes too far. Kim Bruning 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I did, but this message is for SlimVirgin which you guys are reading, ok by me. IZAK

"Offensive to who?"

To me for one. My father and grandfather spent several years in concentration camps and my maternal great grandmother died in one. I find flippant Holocaust analogies offensive as they debase the severity of the actual Holocaust in the popular mind. I urge people to avoid using the Holocaust as an analogy in an effort to score a point in an argument. Homey 23:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Calm down Homey: Both my parents were in the REAL Holocaust and three of my grandparenst were murdered by the REAL Nazis in it, so I know whereof I speak. (By the way, have you ever heard of the REAL Kristallnacht, it was a prelude to the REAL Holocaaust -- first they burned books then ... --- it must not be allowed to happen anywhere on any scale!) There is nothing wrong, or Verboten, in using Holocaust analogies if they make the point crystal clear. Take care, I must go pray now. Be well. IZAK 00:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. By the way, who the heck is Godwin? I have never heard of Godwin's law till now, sheesh people are making up new "laws" all the time, especially on the Internet, it's never going to be possible to keep up with that sort of thin now, is it? Now I am really late for my prayers...gotta go... IZAK 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, I'm simply explaining patiently why your comments are offensive to me and I suspect to most Jews. Do you really think your grandparents would appreciate your comparing their plight to a trivial online dispute?Homey 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• And comparing AFDs to Kristallknacht is no less specious and no less offensive. Homey 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey: Obviously I don't view this as a "trivial online dispute". If it was, I wouldn't be wasting my precious time and effort on it as a labor of love. No doubt my grandparents (and parents) would be very proud of me that I go to the bother of protesting the eradication of the names of important Hasidic rabbis and some modern Jewish organizations on the most modern of communications mediums, the Internet, that spans the globe and reaches humanity no matter where they may be, a matter that is not "trivial" either, which is why how Wikipedia treats the subject matter of Jews, Judaism and Israel is so vital. I do have a decent brain you know. IZAK 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Keeps?

• Hey there, I was wondering why this AfD was given a Speedy Keep? I agree that the overall organization, NFTY, should indeed be kept, but the consensus has generally been that individual chapters or regions are not noteable except by virtue of their association with the parent organization. Similar articles for AZA and USY have also been deleted. You'll see I've proposed that all the regions be merged... so I guess I just wanted to hear your rationale for Speedy Keeping. - pm_shef 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with User: Arniep

Hi. I am having an issue with basically being stalked by User: Arniep and am looking for Administrator advice or intervention.

I was notified by another user (not Arniep) that Arniep has put me on a list of something called an "Advertising Scam".

First of all, understand I am not a "veteran" or daily user. I kind of tinker. I like reading more than anything but when I see something I can add to, I do. But I don't claim to be the Wikipedia expert.

When I found out this Arniep fellow had put me on this "Advertising Scam" list, I tried to contact him directly to find out what it meant and if I had done anything wrong. Rather than deal with me in one-on-one, mature conversation Arniep advised me to file a complaint about him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. So I did what he asked me to do.

Apparently that made him mad because he then put me on a list called "Sock Puppets" and put a notice on my User Page.

Again, I tried reaching out to Arniep directly to discuss this. Again, he refused to talk directly.

I was contacted by another User: Thatcher131. We discussed the situation and Thatcher131 decided Arniep was being unfair in his attacks on me and removed the "Sock Puppet" attack from my User Page.

When I logged in tonight, guess what? Arniep has attacked me again. He has put the "Sock Puppet" attack back on my user page. Again, he refuses to discuss anything man-to-man. All he does is attack me.

I don't understand and am not sure what to do. I would appreciate advice or intervention.

Thank you Icemountain2 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question Moved to talk page

Hi Slim,

I am trying to understand why you reverted this.[6] Some facts that are not disputed are presented as the "IDF view".

Surly the proximity to the border and existense of smuggling tunnels is not just IDF view .

Please help me understand. Thanks. Zeq 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing Mir Harven

Hi, I have noticed that you have acted on my 3RR violation complaint for user RobertaF, but not for Mir Harven, who made 5 reverts. He has not been blocked for this 3RR at all - is it perhaps that you missed him by chance. Thanks. Maayaa 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt and audiatur et altera pars

Dear SlimVirgin. Could you please check out the article Daniel Brandt? I posted the following paragraph which was deleted immediately for being POV and using "weasel wording":

Blocking the user Brandt from Wikipedia and nevertheless keeping a biographical article about him anyone can continue to edit is a strong violation of the principle audiatur et altera pars. No one should be condemned without being given the opportunity to respond to the accusations against him. Brandt is an involuntary public figure.

There is no weasel wording at all and the paragraph above is much more POV. This just presents an alternate view. --DenisDiderot 10:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Denis, you would need to find a source for that edit. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Audiatur et altera pars is a general principle of fair play for all discussions. If one doesn't adhere to it, one is starting a witch hunt. What kind of citation do you mean? I linked to the article of that principle and the fact that Brandt was banned is already mentioned above. Do you refer to characterizing Brandt's being a public person as involuntary? Isn't that obvious from the paragraph above mine? --DenisDiderot 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't hide behind formalities and metadiscussions (discussions about the discussion). You still didn't answer to the point itself. Don't you consider it extremely unfair to talk in public about a person who is banned from defending himself? Don't you see that it can be abused to pillory someone? --DenisDiderot 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not starting anything; I'm not editing the article. Please discuss it with the editors on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I appealed to you because you are an experienced editor and administrator here. --DenisDiderot 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean you particularly and changed the wording from "you" to "one" above. I appealed to you because you are an experienced editor and administrator here. --DenisDiderot 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can I be of assistance?

Hey Slim, Ava said you were trying to contact me. How can I help? --ZCS 18:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exact placement of quote

Hi, Slim. Now that I see it in place, that is the perfect place for the PETA principle quote. --Uncle Ed 18:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omura Entry Efforts Appreciation

My appreciation for your efforts and good offices in re this. The entry seems to me fine, indeed, at this point. For my part, many thanks. Fucyfre 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your work in cleaning up a touchy issue. -Will Beback 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

It's hard not to when Will Beback harrasses me and I make a sincere effort to resolve our problems and he keeps ignoring me while trying to get me banned. He is committing slander and he ignores all of the positive edits I make. He cherry picks my edits and takes them out of context to make me look bad without even letting me defend myself. If that is how you want to operate wikipedia go ahead but it's not fair. I would be happy to do whatever is necessary to resolve this if you will let me.

Jerry Jones 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I just made my 3rd and last revert on Wikipedia:No personal attacks (talk|history|watch), in view of your warning you might want to consider that you yourself have already made 3 reverts now beforehand. --Col. Hauler 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

SV, I think the explicated examples of personal attack should remain. If you still wish to remove it I ask you discuss it with me first on the Talk page there. That portion really says nothing new. It merely gives explicit examples in line with sub-heading/bullet there. We live in a dumbed-down society, and peole need cold, stark examples. --Diligens 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained revert

I noticed that you reverted some text I posted to WP:3RR [7], but I don't see any place where a reason was stated. The text did not constitute vandalism, so a reason would normally be given. I think it's entirely fair to ask you why you did this. Al 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another unexplained revert

Why do you insist on removing factual and supported information from the Robin Webb article without discussing it? --SpinyNorman 20:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your BAYT work

Thank you for the good work. Crum375 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Jews and Their Lies

Slim, I just got through proposing a move for this page when I saw that you were the one who performed it. Is there something I'm missing here? There doesn't appear to be any reason to disambiguate the title, and even if some other work were to exist, it would be substantially less notable and probably derivitive. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the excerpts could be merged with the original article. I think that the excerpts article was made because of the length. Merger could avoid complete deletion. --Drboisclair 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I see the reason behind that. But at the same time I feel that its inappropriate to parenthetically lengthen titles of pages in the absence of disambiguation. I have seen other examples of across Wikipedia, which inevitably don't work. American terrorism (term) is the most recent example of this that I can remember. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't endorse things that we write about; but explicitly attempting to make clear that we don't endorse certain things is equally problematic. Also, I think the capitalization and the old-fangle "On..." makes clear that its a book title rather than an article about the Jews and their lies. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you don't get confused, I think Drboisclair is commenting on the "exerpts" subarticle for that same page, not the move. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my archiving bobble on Talk:Juan Cole. I would have gotten there eventually, but it was nice to have help. Also, thanks for your clear and very readable comments on the policies and appropriate behavior. --William Pietri 08:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

I would like to emphasise some of my closest friends are Jews, most of them Sephards. But I'm aware most people share the Ashkenazi point of view. Foreigner 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin ^{Be excellent}

[edit] May 20 AFDs

I was closing some May 20 AFDs and came across a group of them you speedy kept, despite some of them having consensus to delete at the time of speedy keeping (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federation of Zionist Youth for one; the others were mainly no consensus). Could I inquire why? And, by the way, one you closed as speedy keep is currently up for a 2nd AFD (I assume DRV should have been undertaken, or maybe it was and sent to AFD again, I don't know). Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 04:51 UTC (2006-05-25)

My apologies, upon further investigation I've found the thread regarding this at the noticeboard. Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 04:53 UTC (2006-05-25)

[edit] Oh, no.... not again

Hello. Colonel Marksman here. I'm here to ask from an Admin. about NPOV and POV. (Sigh, I wonder how many times you answered these questions!)

You see... *Blaw, blaw, blaw,* and then because... *babble, babble, babble*.... please understand that... *yawn*.... for my conclusion for... *tsk, tsk.* thank you for your time.

-- (Replies I'm getting) Well kid, just go #### yourself ok? You have no clue what you're talking about. (Continues fighting) :(

Just make it clear to me Wikipedia's outlook on the differences on POV vs. opinion (what's the difference?). As someone explained it, "Do you want to say the glass is half full, or half empty?"

But something else didn't make sense to me. Why not just state the facts? I'm yet to come across an encylopedia that does any more than that. Also, is anything ever actually "implied" in any Wikipedia policy?

I guess, for everything I'm trying to say in a nutshell.

I'm not asking you to fight my battles, and I'm not asking you questions because I'm a child in need of an adult (I'm not even asking you to say anything in the discussion). I'm asking because I'm concerned and all anyone around me does is the above example.

It concerns me that NPOV is constituted as simply "balancing the POVs". (E.g. So-and-so says the glass is half full, but so-and-so says the glass is half empty... why not just say, "The glass is 50% filled with liquid" and avoid everything?)

Something tells me Wikipedia tried that once and it didn't work. (Only stating the facts.) Colonel Marksman 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Put briefly, it's because people don't agree on what the facts are.

• o.0 ... I'm terribly sorry, but that is never the issue I ever come across.
• The issues I always see in any arguement (thus far) is not whether or not so-and-so is true or such-and-such is true or it really did happen, but rather, inserting the sources way of putting that truth (POV). In the Hitler page for example: the arguement is that "this source says this about Hitler's religion". "Oh yeah? THIS source says this!" and worst of them all: "You want to take out my source because it hurts your personal POV, and you suck because of that." -- Most of this is about deciding Hitler's religion. In trying to help at one point by saying, "Hitler's religion was never of any importance. This is the first article of Hitler I read saying anything about his religion. Its only a few paragraphs... can we take it out?" -- "NO! We must keep up controversy about this, and we must keep arguing about it because his religion was what influenced his actions." (My look on it)
• My question is, why is anyone arguing about it? Just state the facts with a reliable source, ignore any personal opinions, and on subjects that require certain information a POV, fall back on the NPOV. (E.g. in my example about sources stating Blacks are whores screwing America, that's not really any necessary information)
• In order: WP:NOR, WP:V, then WP:NPOV
• I doubt it's the disagreement on what the facts are (never at all), it's who said the facts and how they word it. Colonel Marksman 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For laudable work

		The Original Barnstar
		For your laudable concern for good editing and sourcing and your tireless efforts toward the same I award you the Original Barnstar--Drboisclair 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we bring the discussion on the village pump to an end?

Hi Slimvirgin, can I request that you help me put an end to the argument about Arniep on the village pump? I do not think anything is gained from further debate. I have told Arniep, in my capacity as an admin, that his assumptions/generalizations are not acceptable whether he believes there ok or not. I would like to request, strongly, that the argument not continue. -- SCZenz 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, at least, that it not continue on the village pump; if you feel it's useful, take it up with him on his user page. -- SCZenz 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, saying that much of the Israeli media has distorted information on Rachel Corrie does not make someone strongly anti Israel. Arniep 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquirata

Just to be clear, User:Aquirata (who has indeed enormously gotten under my skin) has not once at this pointedited the Wiki space. He is good faith near as I can tell--talkitive and verbose, but good faith. Did want to make that clear given that you brought up his editing experience. He may be tying up NPOV talk at the present but there's nothing that says he can't. And it's not as if NPOV doesn't need a tweak or twenty... Marskell 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Sandifer

I deleted the article once; please see Jayjg's page for my explanation. Demi ^T/_C 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me what you find unclear then, since "An AFD would result in a huge battle and many nonconstructive interactions, for almost no value to the encyclopedia." pretty much sums it up for me. And please verify in the deletion log that I deleted the article once, before you say again that I deleted it twice. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you could and should have discussed this with AdamBishop before restoring. This shows extreme hypocrisy. Demi ^T/_C 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep this page deleted. For legal and tactical reasons, it is quite unwise to supply any information at this point in time. Kim Bruning 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh, well, whatever we think of it, SPUIs putting it on DRV has killed it dead. Kim Bruning 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Idea

Hi Slim,

I'm testing out an idea. One thing struck me. We have many long and extremely good articles. But many readers just come to the site to glance at articles and won't read the full text. I'm testing out the idea of adding in a summary box, called an infobox synopsis, containing a two or three line basic summary, in articles, to see if they work. For example:

I've placed it on a handful of articles as a test, including Bertie Ahern. Any opinion? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] juan cole

i"ve copied some discussion for your interest

Some pages on controversial subjects, like Talk:Evolution, explicitly send people elsewhere to discuss the topic rather than the article, perhaps that's a good idea here. Personally, I'm staying out of editing the article itself; I've just dropped by to put out enough of the flames that this article gets unlocked and editing proceeds as normal. I do agree that it seems like there is a consensus on Sandbox/1, so perhaps a couple of the regular participants should ask an admin to unlock the pages. --William Pietri 23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should discuss the topic elsewhere. As for the apparent consensus on sandbox/1, I really don't know how to ask an admin to change the damn page finally. It's like we're all sitting at the dinner table looking at each other, waiting for someone to start eating. Greg Kuperberg 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems the discussion went off topic in this section. I unprotected Juan Cole/sandbox/1. Å©Humus sapiens Ñ~ÑÖ? 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. But what I meant by "the damn page" was not sandbox/1, but the actual Juan Cole page, the one that was locked weeks ago. Almost everyone here agrees that sandbox/1 should or could replace it, but we plebes cannot do it. Greg Kuperberg 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought William was an administrator but if he's not and if Humus is not willing to take the action why not put a request on SlimV's talk page to pull down what's there for the Juan Article and put up Sandbox1 take CAre!--Will314159 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [edit]

So what's the deal?

It appears there was consensus to replace the protected page with the stripped down sandbox page but keep it protected. That hasn't happened yet. It's also not clear what sandbox page new additions should be made to. Can anyone clarify whether we are moving forward here or not? Thanks.--csloat 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Take Care!--Will314159 00:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blp/defamation templates

SV, I noticed you were adding template:blp to talk pages and I know you've been involved with developing that protocol, so I'm wondering if you can help me. I'd like to find a template I can use to put on user talk pages to warn against placing defamatory material in articles. However template:defwarn is so strongly-worded that I'm reluctant to use it in many cases. I'm thinking there should be a message that is shorter and less dramatic for instances which are not serious, such as kids who may not even realize that a "free encyclopedia" does not mean they can use it to call their teacher "fatso". Essentially a nice note saying that real people have real feelings, that we only want verifiable information, and that writing false derogatory things about living people can have consequences. If there isn't usch a template, can we write one? Cheers, -Will Beback 08:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Hizb1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hizb1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal of Saladin1970 to Arbcom

Saladin has requested to appeal his indefinite block to Arbcom. I have entered his plea on his behalf at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (making no judgement as to its legitimacy) and have named you as a party in the request. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partnership minyan discussions

Hi Slim: You may be interested in the comments and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Self-promotion concerning the Partnership minyan article, and the edits by User:Shirahadasha, for example, User:TShilo12 reports below, Best wishes, IZAK 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh. This is a rehash of the old Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article (AfD => deleted 25 January 2006) that first appeared as a massive addition to Minyan (viz). In the AfD discussion, I recommended it be pared down and merged with Role of women in Judaism, which it obviously has not been, instead it was resurrected ten weeks later as Partnership minyan, 6 April 2006. It was Anystat (talk • contribs) along with 165.89.84.88 (talk • contribs) who were the primary contributors to the "Minyan" additions and then to the "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati" article, and it appears that the primary content contributors to the new article, "Partnership minyan" is/are another one-issue editor, Shirahadasha (talk • contribs), and unsurprisingly, the same anon IP, 165.89.84.88 (talk • contribs). My guess is that Shirahadasha is not "new" because "Shirahadasha" is "Anystat". Tomer^talk 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, would appreciate your commenting here. Complete discussion (so far) is below. My concern is that the basic thrust -- I've done nothing but links to Shira Hadasha, it's one minor minyan and doesn't deserve an article, I've somehow done something sneaky -- isn't factually true, and there seems to be much POV gnashing of teeth about the evils of feminism etc. --Shirahadasha 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Shirahadasha (talk • contribs) is self-promoting a particular format of tefilla as practiced by, no surprise, a minyan in J'lem called Shira Hadasha. While no doubt there will be plenty of people fascinated by this development, it is still quite a small-scale thing. Could some others have a look at Shira Hadasha and the innovatively titled Partnership Minyan, and see if they can be merged?

My personal view is that this amounts to revisionism for political reasons (feminism). I'm not personally aware of Orthodox critics of this development, but I doubt this has gone unnoticed in Israel's Haredi circles. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Shirahadasha contributions do not seem like those of a new editor, but of some who has experience with Wikipedia. Perhaps there were edits as an anon, or under a different name. I believe that an admin can look into things like that. Jon513 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not too concerned about sockpuppetry or something. Some people edit as anons for months before finally registering. I'm more concerned about a push to have the Shira Hadasha view pushed on multiple pages while it is a very small development. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh. This is a rehash of the old Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article (AfD => deleted 25 January 2006) that first appeared as a massive addition to Minyan (viz). In the AfD discussion, I recommended it be pared down and merged with Role of women in Judaism, which it obviously has not been, instead it was resurrected ten weeks later as Partnership minyan, 6 April 2006. It was Anystat (talk • contribs) along with 165.89.84.88 (talk • contribs) who were the primary contributors to the "Minyan" additions and then to the "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati" article, and it appears that the primary content contributors to the new article, "Partnership minyan" is/are another one-issue editor, Shirahadasha (talk • contribs), and unsurprisingly, the same anon IP, 165.89.84.88 (talk • contribs). My guess is that Shirahadasha is not "new" because "Shirahadasha" is "Anystat". Tomer^talk 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Chodesh Tov everybody! I'd invite folks on this board to take a closer look at both my edits and my articles.

If you take a look you'll find the majority of articles I've edited don't deal with particular forms of tefilla at all. Take a look at the history of Passover, Passover Seder, Korbanot, Birkat Hamazon, List of Jewish Prayers and Blessings, Amidah, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Avi Weiss, Zugot, and much more. Some of the content may be controversial, but there's nothing like self-promotion going on here, no irrelevant content, no spurious links, no refusals to participate in discussions, no simple pushing.

Tomer is correct: I made a decision to separate professional and religious edits. The reasons why are obvious. There's nothing nefarious about it. I've forgotten to sign on at times, but I haven't presented myself as multiple personalities in the same place. FYI I've also used several computers, some of which were shared.

As to the Shira Hadasha and Partnership minyan articles, given acknowledgment that the stuff is notable even in "Israel's Haredi circles", and given the sources proving notability (listing minyanim, conferences, etc. quotes by leading OU and YU figures, etc.), I'm not sure I understand why there's a problem. SlimVirgin and others have added articles to Wikipedia's collection on Orthodoxy and feminism including articles on the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, Blu Greenberg, and Jewish feminism. There's enough going on for this to be notable. One's certainly entitled to think the whole shebang is a bad thing, "revisionism", "political", whatever. But what's personal POV disagreement with an article's subject-matter got to do with labels like "self-promotion"? See Personal attacks#consequences.

--Shirahadasha 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For your work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For demonstrating calmness, resolve, and dedication to editorial excellence in the face of controversy and abuse, I, Xoloz, award SlimVirgin this well-deserved Barnstar of Diligence. Xoloz 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

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

[edit] Jack Hensley videos

Why did you remove the Jack Hensley videos?

If the links no longer worked, that's okay.

But if it is because you are personally offended by the content, than it's not okay and they must be placed back. The videos are technically primary sources and historical evidence. WhisperToMe 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Wales

SlimVirgin, you might want to read the secion above the ones that you added, I am in a discussion there already with the person who insists to keep it in. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you did a good job on the article! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Lewis

Wilson College and the Polytechnic may be some pre-university schools, which may even no longer exist, but nobody knows that for sure, except perhaps Mr. Lewis himself. For now I've removed any references to them so as not to mislead the readers. Pecher ^Talk 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the fair use rationale. Pecher ^Talk 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiles

I am glad you liked [8] the smiley --Dakota ~ 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for adminship

I wanted to alert you to an adminship application I've filed. Given our disagreement that night, I figured it would be fair to alert you to give you an opportunity to vote on this, even if indeed your vote is an oppose. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy question

I have added a request for clarification on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on whether it is acceptable to blank your own talk page. I am notifying you because I (believe I) have specifically seen you take a stand in the past that it is acceptable. However, I have seen many other admins say it is NOT acceptable. I'm trying to get an unambiguous determination one way or another. Anyway, I thought you may want to weigh in on the issue. To be clear, we are not in conflict. My problem is that I do not know what Wikipedia policy is. If official policy is to allow such blanking, that's fine with me. --Yamla 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Mistress Selina Kyle reblock

Dear SlimVirgin: I am writing in regard to your reversal of Linuxbeak's mentorship unblocking of Mistress Selina Kyle (talk • contribs). Although I strongly respect your desire towards wishing adequate community consensus prior to permitting an unblock of this user, due to charges of misconduct previously levelled and indeed justified by user contributions, I do feel that there would be no adverse consequence to permitting a mentorship unblock of either MSK or, indeed, Blu Aardvark, provided the users' actions are watched with adequate attention and that the users are expeditiously reblocked should a user renege upon the conditions of their mentorship agreement. I would ask you to please reverse your re-blocking and permit MSK perhaps a final mentorship chance. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I second NicholasTurnbull's comments and am surprised that you stated that MSK "was never a useful contributor", which is extremely unfair and untrue. wikipediatrix 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Slim (or is it "Ms. Virgin"?? GRIN!), and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Support from senior editors such as yourself is especially gratifying, and I'll do everything in my power to live up to the trust you've placed in me. Thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

[edit] Discovered something

On a template discussion, someone pointed out to me that Image:Anime by nima.jpg is actually fanart/a tracing of "a character from some Anime series". This is protected by copyright; see [9] and so forth. I therefore had to reclassify it as fair use, so (unfortunately) you'll have to remove it from your userpage. Ashibaka tock 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know that I really have nothing against you and there is no reason for me to hold a grudge against you. I don't know you in real life. I have no wish to disrupt the encyclopedia. You are not interfering with anything I do. I'm sorry if I caused you anguish. We're just two strangers on the Internet, and we can disagree or agree, but in the end we're here for the same purpose. Peace. Ashibaka tock 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)