User talk:SlimVirgin/archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 David Duke article 2 Image:Euripides.jpg 3 9-11 Page 4 Adminship? 5 WR Mysteries of the Organism 6 Colley Cibber 7 From the depths of the abyss 8 9-11 page 9 Wikipedia:Reliable sources 10 Blocking policy 11 9-11 12 Common knowledge 13 Revisionist Zionism 14 Journalism 15 Mr Mustard 16 My compliments 17 Morality, rights, & animals 18 Hiya 19 Thanks Slim 20 My adminship 21 Human 22 Bigger Wiesel image 23 Still willing 24 Army question & Journawiki 25 Human 26 Moral relativism 27 Adminship 28 Contract 29 The (de)ontology of Human 30 Thank You! from Carbonite 31 Osama Bin Laden

[edit] David Duke article

I could do with your help; the David Duke article is being attacked by a white supremacist sockpuppet, who keeps reverting. I'm going to run into the 3RR if someone doesn't spell me. Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Euripides.jpg

The statue is in the public domain, but unfortunately the photograph of the statue is not. U.S. copyright law holds that the shadows and angles involved in the photograph of a statue are copyrightable. So the image may be copyrighted, unless we can find the image's original source. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9-11 Page

Hi again "Slim Virgin," I re-added the effects on children section of the 9-11 page, the reason why i did this is because: I feel the section is encyclopedic, and see nothing wrong with it (It sites sources and states the facts). Now please don't revert me because no compromise has been reached on the page. Thank You--198 03:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship?

I don't know if people were waiting for the LaRouche thing to pass, or if you've declined previously that I'm not aware of. Are you interested in being an administrator, and if so, would you like me to nominate you? --Michael Snow 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would say you have at least as much experience and skill in dealing with disputes as many current admins. But anyway, whenever you feel ready is fine. --Michael Snow 18:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd also happily nominate or support you when you feel ready, Slim. Dan100 19:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, Slim! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What they all said. Even if you dress your poodle funny. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Love me, love my dog's clothes, Josh. SlimVirgin 20:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Careful. Last time someone said something like that to me, I married her. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Y'know...handling edit disputes is not that big a deal. If you're involved in the dispute, just don't put on your admin hat; if you aren't involved, my approach is along the lines of "ok, all of you take it to the talk page or all of you will get spanked." Really, the biggest part of adminship, it seems, is being able to quickly revert obvious vandalism, and being able to quickly block obvious vandals; the other things are just helpful as opposed to urgent, like helping out with CAT:CSD or WP:RM. Otherwise, being an admin just makes a good editor into a more thoughtful and careful editor, if they're already a thoughtful and careful person. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WR Mysteries of the Organism

Thanks for saying something nice about the article. Experienced copyeditor, Fifelfoo added substantial filmic analysis to it. An An 22:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colley Cibber

Hi, Slim, just dropping by to thank you very much for your kind and flattering FAC vote for Colley, the old fraud. Those are some cool poodle shoes. If you live in a climate anything like mine, they're just what a doggie needs (blizzard outside at this moment). Bishonen | Talk 17:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From the depths of the abyss

Hi S_V, I'm b-a-a-ck! Where wasn't I?

Image:Partybowie.gif

I want to thank you again for your very kind, generous words you've written on Wally's talk page. I greatly appreciate all your support!

Cordially & sincerely yours,

El_C 20:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9-11 page

Hi again "Slim Virgin," if there is a clear consensus on the 9-11 page, I won't revert if you remove it.--198 06:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reliable sources

The new Wikipedia:No original research looks good to me. "Reliable sources" has been on WP:RFC for four days of an intended 30 day run. It appears to be relatively non-controversial. I would say it's a good idea to synchronize "No original research" with it, perhaps by copying "What counts as a reputable publication?" to somewhere near the top of "Reliable sources" and refactoring it. I think my missive is missing a short, readable, casual introduction/summary that gives people some quick advice. The page is so long that a lot of people probably won't read the whole thing, unfortunately. Then the improved summary can be copied back to "No original research", so there's something quick there to parallel the summaries of the other related policies. The "Dubious sources" section of Wikipedia:Verifiability also needs to be synchronized with "Reliable sources".

Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources is still changing a lot. I'm hoping that if or when it stabilizes, it will be incorporated into Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have refashioned my proposed alternative to "Confirm queried sources" as an amendment to "Verifiability"; see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.

Both "Confirm queried sources" and "Reliable sources" are currently in Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank, which I think is appropriate for now. After 30 days, I will graduate "Reliable sources" to Category:Wikipedia semi-policy if it seems stable and agreed to. But I would say that synchronizing with "No original research" need not wait for that; indeed, such alignment could and should be considered part of the maturation process, I think. -- Beland 02:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking policy

Hi Slim. Actually, I was reverting massive page-move vandalism of "X" to "X can be a drastic and unexpected change", which has affected a number of pages in the last hour or so. This particular series of incidents so annoyed me, actually, that I've abandoned my normal feigned humility and am now seeking adminship. Thanks.--Pharos 02:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was User:©, which has I think been fully dealt with now (none of the recent page-moves are listed on the contributions page). See User talk:© for a record of the recent vandalism.--Pharos 02:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9-11

Hi Slim, well I have very strong feelings about 9-11 in general...I edit-warred on that page in past with Gzornenplatz over including the word terrorist in the article. Part of the reason why I have these strong feels is because my friend Adam who worked in Trade Center died in the attacks.--198 02:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common knowledge

Ooops, I hadn't noticed that your comment under the heading "Semi-common knowledge" wasn't referring to the Common knowledge section at all. After reading your note, I was going to move just that part back, but your solution of replicating the sections on both talk pages is probably best. Sorry about the confusion. -- Beland 04:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply about the talk page, but can I ask again what you're trying to achieve with Common Knowledge, given that it contradicts policy?

Sure...I just finished a major rewrite of Common Knowledge, and I was about to answer that very question on Wikipedia talk:Common knowledge. -- Beland 05:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionist Zionism

Could you please take a look at the dispute at Revisionist Zionism? User:Guy Montag is trying to censor material critical of Revisionist Zionism, particularly documented evidence of fascist sympathies among various Revisionists in the early 1930s. AndyL 22:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Journalism

Hi, Slim. The Journawiki has started here. Maurreen 23:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Mustard

I know that he wasn't Mr Mustard or whoever because an anonymous IP made the changes. It could have been Mean Mustard but not logged in, true, but then he ought to be glad that I alerted him to the fact that some might block him for impersonation. Reply on my talkpage please.--212.100.250.225 07:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My compliments

I feel a need to compliment you on your good humor and civility. We have disagreed on a large number of contentious and controversial topics, and I want to let you know that I appreciate your tone. I have not always lived up to my own standards (I'm not sure anyone does ;), but you have pleasantly surprised me more than once. In case you are unaware, I respect civility, politeness and good humor over ideological conformity. Better a dignified opponent than a dubious ally, I say. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morality, rights, & animals

Sorry to take so long getting back to you on this (I shouldn't be now, but I'm bogged down in what I'm working on, so I thought that I'd try getting bogged down in this instead...).

Very briefly and sketchily, then, I think that putting morality in terms of rights is misguided for all the reasons that philosophers like Mackie have levelled at moral realism of the Platonic kind: rights, if they existed, would be queer things, and it would be difficult to see how we could come to know what they were. moreover, it's difficult (to say the least) to account for their origins (unless one appeals to a god, and even then one runs into problems). I think that it's wrong because it shifts the moral point from being other-directed (how ought I to behave to others?) to self-directed (how ought others behave to me?) — that's something that's borne out by popular appeals to rights whenever people are in the wrong.

My position is a form of moral realism sometimes known as 'moral objectivism', and it can be found in philosophers going back at least to Hume (but in fact, I think, back to the ancient Greeks), and more recently expounded by philosophers such as David Wiggins and John McDowell. Essentially, morality is a product of our nature as sentient, empathic, sympathetic, and rational beings. The genuinely moral person not only knows what it's like to feel pain, but grasps what it is for another to feel pain, and responds to that pain in the same way that she responds to her own — she wants to remove it, and certainly tries to avoid producing it. Rationality is essential, not only to tell the difference between say, child-abuse and vaccinations, but also to recognise potential pain and other pain that's not immediate.

With regard to animals, then, as Bentham put it: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” (from An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hiya

Slim, just wanted to say howdy. Maurreen 05:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Slim

I appreciate it... just replying to all the people who posted a message to my talk page. I have a friend whose going to London for a year... who knows? I may go visiting. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship

Thank you for voting for me for adminship. I appreciate the confidence you showed in me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me second that. Thank you for your confidence in me. Your support vote on my adminship nomination is appreciated. — mark ✎ 21:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human

Thank you for your personal note and for your efforts to reach understanding. It is good to be working with you. Tom Haws 20:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a good start, but I think that some more about humanity's remarkable achievements that set Homo sapiens apart from other species. That is, we are biological, and that comes first, but there are some significant differences that have developed, especially in the last 10,000 years. My full comments are at Talk:Human. But I think this is something good to work from. And by the way, good luck in your request for adminship! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't be nervous. In less than a day, you've already received as many supports as I did in a week. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bigger Wiesel image

Looks great, Slim. Bishonen | Talk 21:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still willing

In terms of preparation, the stock questions on adminship nominations suggest a couple pages to read, though I imagine you may well have looked at them already. Anyway, I went ahead and posted the nomination, so you can indicate whether you accept at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SlimVirgin. Mentally, you might prepare yourself to field any additional questions about your work beyond the generic ones, but I really think you're a fairly obvious candidate for those who know anything about you. --Michael Snow 01:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Army question & Journawiki

I wouldn't write "Third U.S. Army."

Then "Third" is modifying "U.S. Army." In contexts within the United States, it would just be written "Third Army" or "3rd Army." So, the "U.S." should modify "Third Army." ... A little like "U.S. President Bush."

Thanks for your compliments on Journawiki. I had left a note at Wikinews. We are going to save wide publicity (to non-wikiists) until we have more material. I've been looking for journalists or interested others who are already at least familiar with wikis. Maurreen 03:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human

Goethean, could I ask you to consider working with us at Talk:Human to come up with a consensus version we can all live with? Quite a few editors object to the old version, and around the same number to the new version, so the best thing is to start from scratch and build it up slowly, which is what my compromise suggestion intends. Please do make suggestions for what you'd like to see added, or make the additions yourself. I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views. Then once we have a working model up and running, we can compare it to the old and the new versions, and see what the overall consensus is. Would that work for you? Best, SlimVirgin 08:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I want the wikipedia to acknowledge multiple points of view, and you want it to claim that all points of view except for reductive biologism are illegitimate. I don't see room for compromise there. --Goethean 14:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What was wrong with the version of 1 March 2005? --Goethean 14:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Twice I have tried to introduce to wikipedia the discussion point that we (humans) need to determine the point when we stopped being clever apes and became 'human'.

Twice my efforts have been deleted.

Whats that matter with you people? Are you all scared to talk about this, or is it just plain scientific bigotry that prevents you accepting there must have been a point where this occurred? Why, if you SAY you accept ALL POV, do you constantly supress THIS POV?

Personally, i smell scientific bigotry............Im not going to write this POV again, if you dont want the contribution then Wikipedia becomes just anothe biassed rag with a non neutral POV, doesnt it ?

---

Thanks for your involvement in creating a balanced, NPOV intro for the Human article. I wish I could help, but that's too large a topic for me to sink my teeth into. Keep me in mind for other editing projects though. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moral relativism

Hey Slim,

Couple things before I get to the topic line. First, thank you for your supportive comments re. my mediation efforts with El_C and Sam Spade. I certainly can use all the good karma available! Now, if only the mediator would get back to me...

Also, you have a very cute poodle. :)

Now to the meat of it. I was just skimming the article on moral relativism, and noticed several references (a passage, links, etc.) posted by an anon user on 10 March on the subject of 'universism'. The topic has no article on the Wiki at present, and I've not heard of it before. Apparently it is some sort of adjunct of the 'The Universist Movement', whatever that might be. I noticed that you were the last non-anon to make edits to the article, and wondered if you had any comments on this. Wally 01:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello SV...excellent edits to moral relativism. icut4u

Thanks for giving it a check, Slim. Congrats on your (impending) adminship! :) Wally 18:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Thanks so much, Slim. Your'e not far behind, with what must be a satisfyingly overwhelming vote ending in just four days. I hope we can work well as administrators together.--Pharos 03:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contract

Hello Slim. This is one of those classically tragic situations. They're being very nice about the image, and allowing use under reasonable terms. . . but the terms just aren't compatible with the GFDL, sadly. In particular, the clause about not modifying the image means we really can't use it with the GFDL tag. Now you could sign the contract, upload the image, and tag it {{permission}}. That would work, and you would have no legal problems agreeing to that. But I know that eventually all images on Wikipedia that were tagged {{permission}} will be deleted and replaced (maybe in a year or so), so I don't know if you'd want to go through the trouble. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The (de)ontology of Human

So, I've looked at the draft, and I do not believe the last compomise is tenable. Now, sociologists approach humans as social beings, anthropologists as cultural beings, economists as economic beings, etc., and yes, theologists as spiritual beings. Who is to decide which (for lack of a better term) should be included — the lead sentence, especially, seems awefully arbitrary in that sense. Back to theology, it is blatantly POV to have a mini-essay about religion (let it be linked as such), just as it would psychology or political-science. It is unsound to place theologists on such a stage versus all other branches of human activities in a false science versus religion dichotomy. El_C 08:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You! from Carbonite

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I very much appreciate your confidence in me. Please let me know if you see something I should (or shouldn't) be doing as an admin. Regards, Patrick. Carbonite | Talk 13:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Osama Bin Laden

You said: "'Privately, he has attended weddings with family members and kept in contact with his mother.' Could you supply a reference for this please? I've looked around for one, but can't find anything."

I'm not sure why you can't find this as a few seconds with Google gave me references.

CNN - Osama's brother 2002 - Osama's half-brother said his mother talked to him after 9/11 (after 9/11, not just after when they supposedly disowned him).

Bin Laden's sons wedding - A New Yorker piece on Bin Laden and his family, including mention of the video Al-Jazeera showed of him attending his son's wedding months before 9/11. This piece also talks about all of the contacts Bin Laden has had with his family after it supposedly "disowned" him.

Anyhow, beyond all of this, I realize it is necessary to cover all of this up, so I don't care if you erase it or not. The Bin Laden family is very influential in Saudi Arabia, and ExxonMobil's continued dealings with them would be embarrassing without the lie that the Bin Laden's have disowned Osama. The type of people who would revert your edit have all moved on to other wiki's. I myself made that change on the OBL page months ago, I've since realized Wikipedia is only interested on rehashing the party line in the US. Well - CNN and the New Yorker in the back pages tell the truth, but only fanatics like me will dig that out, most people just hear that he got disowned on the 5 o'clock news and believe it. So just pull my comment - I gave up on Wikipedia months ago. (posted by Ruy Lopez)