User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive33

Picture of the day

Waldenburg, Baden-Württemberg, 1945 Photo credit: 2d Lt. Jacob Harris, U.S. Army Archive – More featured pictures...

*Please comment about the content of a specific article on the talk page of that article, not here.
*No personal attacks.

[edit] IronDuke

I absolutely cannot believe that you are defending IronDuke's behaviour on the Reed College page. The very notion that you are demanding that I ignore his reversion, against policy, and on a page where he has trolled before and where I've been a long-term editor, is beyond belief. On top of that, since when is a collection of diffs from Wikipedia constitute an "attack page". If so, then I would request that you delete your page attacking me. I will say this yet again: your analysis and accusation regarding sock puppetry and my account is incorrect. My edits and behaviour on Wikipedia are above reproach. Your and IronDuke's accusations and baiting of me are shameful. -- Gnetwerker 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netscott

This is extremely difficult issue to answer. I don't believe that I was so deeply involved in the debate not to see the block of Netscott objectively, but I could be wrong about that. I sincerely believe that blnguyen's block of one week was entirely too harsh, and brought upon by the weight of vocal editors against him. I believe that both you and JayJG need to treat people you disagree with considerably more respect, notably when there are already editors being derisive. Why do you need to jump into the mob?

Yes, it's hard for me to be too strident about that...sometimes I want to reach my hands into my computer screen and choke people who are acting in a non-sensical manner. I've been known to be short with people too. Since I've been an admin, however, I've tried considerably to temper my emotions when I respond to people...it's why it's taken my this long to reply to you.

I did have a long discussion with blnguyen after the fact. It probably should have originally been reduced to 48 hours rather than merely 24, but I think that increasing someone's block after it's been shortened is in extremely bad form, and only should be done when new evidence is uncovered. Looking at Netscott's blocks in the past, it seems that he is not a bad editor, just impulsive and has a habit of stumbling into hornets' nests. It still doesn't merit a punitive block.

Ultimately, next time I'm remotely involved in a discussion, you can be sure I'll ask an uninvolved admin to perform the task. Thanks for the advice. Bastique▼^parler _voir 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-Lebanon conflict 2006

Please be more careful before deleting referenced content of an article. In case you assume a part is superfluous or does not belong within a particular article,

1. Carefully read the article's talk page so as to ensure yourself, that deleting is not part of edit-warring.
2. If as in the article Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict's talk page, a header states the content is disputed: be double careful and certainly discuss an intended deletion before comitting such.
3. If then still, deleting content is appropriate, in case the content is properly referenced: go to the talk page of the major contributer of that content (to be found by the article's history) and discuss the matter there (for instance suggest moving the content that must have cost a lot of time, to another article).

Deliberately not respecting other contributors' hard work by simply deleting it, can and will be regarded as vandalism. — SomeHuman 27 Aug 2006 11:14 (UTC)

[edit] Netscott and Islamophobia

Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.

To motivate the previous paragraph, consider the difference between "This text is a lie." versus "This user, in this text, tells a lie.": I would argue that given Wikipedia's approximately immutable history, those two statements are equivalent, and thus the surface form of a statement doesn't necessarily indicate its status as a "personal attack". Nysin 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"X is a liar" is a different statement from "X lied in this particular instance", though, in that claims a general habit of or predisposition to lying (more akin to "idiot" in verifiability) whereas the latter can be checked without reference to internal mental state or general habit. I asked about the latter, and you shifted in your response to the former. Nysin 12:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. Okay. No comment on "wikilaywering" for now. Instead, would you see a substantive difference between "This statement [which, implied, by looking at history logs can be traced fairly unambiguously to a single user] is false", "This statement [which, implied, by looking at history logs can be traced fairly unambiguously to a single user] is a lie", "That user made this false statement", and "that user made this lying statement" except in tone? Nysin 13:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV

Was the revert for the summary change, the categorization of the huge link-list, or both? 68.39.174.238 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave the summary-heading alone untill the dust settles. 68.39.174.238 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 :D! 68.39.174.238 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciate your opinion

SV, you mentioned on the Kibbutz FAR that you were part of the Judaism WikiProject. Knowing the depth of your experience across Wiki, I was hoping you would have a look at the controversy on Israel-Venezuela relations, in particular, the BLP issues and the merge proposal. The main author of the article, User talk:Republitarian, was bitten and apparently gave up on Wiki only two weeks after joining, and since I helped him with the article, I'm left with the cleanup. I'm wondering if you think the article is defensible. Thanks for having a look, if you have time, Sandy 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

fkslhjdfhkshfkshflsfjwf

[edit] Robert Spencer

Hi SlimVirgin,

My block is now over. Would you "please" have a look at RfC comment on the discussion page of Robert Spencer here. User: Dy-no-miite is removing sourced material. I have tried my best to make everything well-sourced. --Reza1 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I made those changes you asked for. He continues to be a problem in the article. I'd appreciate your quickest response. Thanks -Psychohistorian 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I'm back from Italy. So much has been going on here that I have lost the plot. Do drop by some time! Best Dbuckner 06:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

Hi SlimVirgin,

I have honestly done my best to keep the balance on the Spencer article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Spencer#Balance . Thanks --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also, please note that I found and added some quotes from Bat Ye'or in defense of Spencer and put them at the top of the section. --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my email

Slim, Before moving ahead, I want to be certain you received my email this morning. WordBomb

Horsefeathers, Grampa! Fred Bauder 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiLawyering

I have unprotected this, feedback is probably more important then the article, which is not in any way policy. Fred Bauder 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

I like your immediate characterisation of my edits as "reverting" (which, I suppose, they are) and "edit warring" (there's no edit war, at least yet, at the moment about the edits I just did). I'll leave it alone for now, yes, though I would appreciate your ceasing simultaneously feigning diplomacy and using (again, so far) an unwarranted description of my activities. Nysin 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runaway comment

"We're not here to do history, Zero, but to repeat what historians have said." You left this on Talk:Joel Brand but you must have been thinking of a different Zero so I'm returning it to you. --Zero^talk 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody around here has a better record at citing sources, and I never insert OR into articles, your comment was not well received. However, I'll assume you just misunderstood me. We can't quote all historians so we have to choose some. Historians who have investigated an issue and written at length on it tend to be better choices than those who merely repeat previous claims in passing. That's why you quite correctly cited "Jews for Sale?" a lot in Joel Brand rather than the countless popular accounts that repeat the standard popular stories.--Zero^talk 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Blood for goods" proposal

can you add Lord Moyne to the template ? thank you ! Amoruso 04:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An article to watch

SV, would you mind watching Boot of beer? I hesitate to even nominate for deletion because I seem to recall it being an actual phrase. But the article is basically being compromised by the creator, who is continually inserting personal pictures of himself and his friends drinking beer from a boot, after they'd been commented out due to copyright status, and reinserting a link to his "boot of beer" myspace. The removals had been reverted once before I got there, and then my removal was reverted again. I've removed them a second time. Mind keeping an eye open? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ann_Coulter#Redundancy_with_Criticisms_of_Ann_Coulter

Hi Slim, I quoted from you (and your Jimbo's quote) regarding the issue of weaving controversy into an article, vs. separating it out into a section, or even an article as is the case here. Your review or input would be greatly appreciated, as I think this is a very generic issue. Thanks, Crum375 11:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] User:Arturo 7

If you get a minute, would you mind heading over to User talk:Arturo 7 and maybe give an opinion as an uninvolved admin about this [1] edit and the edits Arturo made that it concerns? Thanks. JoshuaZ 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

If you continue with this disruption, I will request administrative action against you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kindly cease from labeling my actions as "disruption". Also do make efforts to work with fellow editors and discuss reverts prior to undoing their work. Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Hugely impressed by your work there, well done!--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe? maybe not...

Howdy.. you maybe remember me from our brief discussion about "the new anti-semitism"...

Anyway I ask your advice because there is a huge edit war over at Jews for Jesus, of which I am a part. There are two or three people who claim that J4J is a Jewish orginisation, nice Jews who "happen" to believe that Jesus is G-d, son of G-d, or the Messiah, etc. and that the article should reflect this. There are others including me (two of whom are admins) who believe that J4J is a Christian-based org which aims for the conversion of Jews (well sourced), and that the belief in multiple deities is fundamentally incompatible with Judaism (therefore there cannot be Jews who accept Jesus as G-d). We are being accused of POV because the article reflects a Christian group.

Suffice to say I have asked for your advice specifically because as a Jew, I am sure you are fermilliar with this group. Of course I am not asking you to get involved in this war but maybe you can bring some coolheadedness to it somehow, maybe not... I (as well as others) are baffled by comments which insist over and over again that this group of "Jews" could follow a polytheistic religion. - Abscissa 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther

Quite a bit of activity in Martin Luther, and in a new article Theology of Martin Luther. You may want to peruse as chunks of the former are being copied, or hopefully moved, to the latter.--Mantanmoreland 02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netscott

Hello Slim Virgin. Thanks for the notice and almost simultaneously to a post I made to Jayjg just now about this, just after seeing the ANI post. I'm a bit surprised this wasn't brought up last Friday, I don't mind having groups of people debating on my page at all (see archive 17 and 18) and was surprised that serious concerns like this weren't expressed for a week, when five? others made commented on the post on my page - It's still there is want to comment. Thanks again, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Actually, Bastique discussed it on IRC with Pschemp and a few other admins, unblocked, and then notified me on my talk page, then I went to IRC, was shown the parts of the conversation, and didn't wheel war because I've already had my "serving" so to speak and there was a consensus to not do so, although I am still puzzled that 5++ 3RR blocks only incur 1 day. JoshuaZ and Bakasuprman thought the block was OK though. Unfortunately, it was never disclosed to me that Bastique had himself edited the article in question. Thanks again, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm a bit confused about the last response. In the previous post I was referring to the fact that I wouldn't wheel-war with the others last Friday over the 3RR block, but regarding this new matter described at ANI I will definitely look into it (if I gave the impression that I wasn't going to). Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued violation of WP:OR on the Edah Charedis article.

Please moniter this. I don't want to have any 3RR problems. However, there are a couple of folks who are more interested in The Truth than Wikipedia policy over here, and have refused to provide sources for assertions that they are demanding remain in the article. Please help me out. --Meshulam 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:RyanGerbil10 abusing admin tools in vioaltion of clear WP policy

Hi SV, I could use your help here: User:RyanGerbil10 has been involved in an edit war withme and other editors at Battel of Bint Jbeil. Today, after the page had been reverted to his favored version, he protected the page in clear violation of WP policy which states that admins must not protect pages they have been actively editing. I hope you can unprotect. Isarig 17:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals TOC

I saw that you reverted the change I made to the TOC on this article. Was it doing something weird to the article, or was it a preference thing? I liked the TOCleft, 'cause the page is so long already it didn't need an extra 3 inches of white space. Anyhow, just curious. Thanks, Scientizzle 22:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I wasn't aware that the TOC commands can have browser issues. Thanks, Scientizzle 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: 3RR/Islamophobia

As a matter of fact, I did not revert, just rewrote and added sources. You are kindly advised to check the applicable policies and the contents concerned. 81.58.29.91 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think we have an editing conflict. So adding a POV label seems appropriate.

[edit] Some fair use images

Hi Sarah! You may want to look into the images used in New anti-semitism - several of them lack detailed fair use rationales and should, perhaps, be deleted. Graphical creations equating Israel with Nazi-Germany are a dime a dozen - a typical rally on events in the Middle-East will yield an example or two. Attaining an authentic piece under a free licence shouldn't be too difficult. Graffiti of the sort depicted in the article is also fairly common and probably not copyrightable in most cases so all we need is a freely licenced photograph. Haukur 14:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear - I was thinking of the other images in the article, not the one all the brouhaha has been about. Haukur 15:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's great that you've sent them an e-mail, let's hope that works out. Here are my concerns on the rest of the images:

• Image:FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg - Falls foul of counterexample 5 unless this is a very famous 'iconic' photograph. Maybe it is but then that needs to be explained on the image description page. In any case a detailed FU rationale is lacking.
• Image:NewASMagenDavidswastika.jpg - This was what my "dime a dozen" comment referred to. Admittedly this was published in a newspaper but I'd argue that a picture of similar art from a rally would serve as well. In any case it needs a detailed rationale.
• Image:Latuff cartoon Israeli soldier voting.jpg - This is one of those tricky non-commercial images which made it in before the relevant deadline. It will probably be deleted eventually unless fair use is claimed. Preferably we would have a freely licenced cartoon there, that should be possible, though not trivial, to obtain.
• Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg - This one is marked as public domain "because it's a work of Nazi Germany". That's very dubious and must be explained more carefully. Most art from that era is not in the public domain.

Kotepho makes some more points here though I think that some of his criticism is misguided. While theoretically we could ourselves create this sort of art and licence it freely that sort of thing wouldn't be authentic and thus wouldn't make sense for us to use in these articles. Haukur 15:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"not one we could simply copy, because the whole point is to show where it comes from" - I agree with that, that's exactly what I'm saying above, the images have to be authentic. All I'm saying is that they need to be correctly tagged and that we should use fair use images sparingly. I may take some of the images to IfD for more input, I just wanted to give you a chance to review them first. Haukur 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.

- Mgm|^(talk) 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpinyNorman

Hello Slim, about this user User talk:SpinyNorman. Do you not this that he has had more than enough warnings about 3RR on his own talk page, yet he continues to abuse this rule, not to mention attacking admin's like yourself. Banning is the only way to be rid of this pest. Gunter 11:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now he's doing it again on the "list of the fastest cars by acceleration"... Gunter 11:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're probably the most frequently personally attacked editor I've ever seen (see every thread on that website). Hang in there! You're doing great. :) alphaChimp ^laudare 01:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Would you block Dahn (talk · contribs) and Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) for 3RR on Mircea Eliade article? --Peter IBM 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They spoke one with another. Also WP:Civil is not the page that they have read yet. --Peter IBM 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This person has deleted text outright. (S)he is also a likely sockpuppet. (S)he has made claims that were not backed by anything, and accused ithers of POV without ever indicating why. Dahn 20:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Slim? WP:POV and WP:CIVIL are not the pages that this user is familiar with. --Peter IBM 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What about WP:3RR of Dahn (talk · contribs) --Peter IBM 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no restrictions when dealing with banned users. —Khoikhoi 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Review

Hi! I've requested an Editor review and would very much appreciate your thoughts. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your help would be appreciated

take a look at the 3RR report recently filed against me, regarding edits to Battle of Bint Jbeil. I believ this is a bad faith report, but would accept your judgement. Isarig 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Jemson block

Katie Jemson (talk • contribs) is requesting an unblock. Looking through her contribs, she doesn't even have any User talk edits to suggest she is a sockpuppet of "T Turner/D Sanchez et al". --  Netsnipe  ►  04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Netsnipe, please don't unblock. I've requested a check user. It's almost certainly the same person who was causing chaos earlier with several accounts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Too late. I've just unblocked her AND emailed her about it right before I got your message. Apologies in advanced if Checkuser turns out positive. I'll keep an eye out on her activity in the meantime. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you would do that? You're not familiar with the case, the background, the IP addresses, or the other accounts. You referred it to me for review, and I am familiar with it. I have requested a check user, which takes time. And yet, within minutes of referring it to me, you unblock anyway, even though the blocking policy cautions strongly against doing this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's confirmed by check user so I've reblocked. The IP address "Katie" gave you was a made-up one. Please don't rush in to undo other admin's blocks again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the contributions for both T Turner and D Sanchez and I couldn't find anything in common. D Sanchez has no (main) edits, T Turner has 1. Both were blocked for talk page harassment and Katie currently has no talk page edits and 3 (main) edits. I also took a look at Ray Lopez and couldn't find a single connection in there as well. So what evidence am I missing from the picture? In hindsight I now know it was rather bad of me to override your block, but please note this is my second day as an admin, so my WP:AGF instinct is still way too strong. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if it's your second day, I'll forgive you. :-) First, read WP:BLOCK. You're not supposed to undo other admins' blocks unless they're not available and it's an emergency. Second, if you pass it to the blocking admin for review, you must allow them to review it. Third, in this case there's evidence that you're overlooking, but I won't say here what it is because I don't want to help the person to be a better sockpuppet in future. Finally, if you're going to AGF, you must also assume it of the blocking admin, especially if the admin is experienced. It makes no sense to AGF of someone with four edits but not of someone with 40,000. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please email this evidence so I can spot this sockpuppeteer in future too? --  Netsnipe  ►  05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about 3RR

Hi SlimVirgin, after your comment i updated 3RR case's diffs, but i want to notice that he has a checkuser case too:) I'm waiting for someone to check. Cheers --Ugur Basak 11:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folke Bernadotte

Hi SlimVirgin. I really would prefer not to. I accept your points that it's akin to rewarding behaviour, and I wish I would have refreshed my browser as opposed to just protecting the page. But I really think that all involved parties take a break from editing Folke Bernadotte, and I think that reverting versions would not be in keeping with that spirit. Sorry. I have to head to work now, but you're welcome to ask someone else to review. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies Slim, in retrospect I should have listened and reverted instead of rushing off. Got 2 e-mails showing me a number of tendentious Spiny reverts and an ArbCom case with him listed (as well as a synopsis of his reverts on this article). Upon review myself this AM, found many many more. Take care -- Samir धर्म 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging living people as Jews

I do not know whether you have noticed a recent fashion in the biography pages of people whose life and work bore little or no relation to Judaism. Many of those people are still alive. The discussion in Talk:Grigori Perelman seems to have become quite heated, and might nevertheless be generating some light; it seems there is little specifically Perelmanian about it, however.

Could you take a look at the topic entitled as above in the policy section of Wikipedia:Village pump? It would be good if people with much more experience in Wikipedia than I have talked this over once and for all. Yours, Bellbird 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your supportive comments today, they have been appreciated in what has been generally a very spiteful day. I've seen a lot of people in a new light, and lost all respect for many admins to whom I had previously been indifferent. I can see now clearly what changes need to be made here, and how they should be realised. Thanks a lot Giano | talk 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not vandalize

SlimVirgin, please do not insert POV information into the Jews for Jesus article. That is tantamount to vandalism. That article is not a forum for the airing of your personal theology. Thanks.ParadoxTom 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing on the article anyway, "slim virgin"? What drew you there? It's an odd corner to show up in....and immediate start edit warring.

Justforasecond 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

Could you please semi-protect my userpage? I feel threatened by the indefblocked User:Leprechaun (who I know in real life) who is threatening to attack my talk page with his Ip.  Jorcoga  09:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gratias tibi agimus

We, the people of the ID page, gathered in order to prsent an NPOV article, thank you profusely. Signing for all, •Jim62sch• 10:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Slim -- hope you are well

I was surprised and a little disoriented by this reversion. [2] Am I missing something? The points seemed relevant to the discussion, even if the person's CAPS key was stuck. I'm not trying to second-guess you, just hoping for a discussion. Why would that be inappropriate material for a talk page? BYT 13:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have deleted the comments myself even if SlimVirgin hadn't. Discussion pages are not chat rooms to express one's personal feelings about the subjects of articles, they are for discussing the editing of the articles. The potential troll factor was doubled by the user's plea for others to join in the thread, and tripled by the fact that it is the user's first and only edit to Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your perspective on this, but it seems to me that the fact that we was a first-time user might also point us toward the approach of reminding this user that his observations need to be tied to a specific editorial issue on the article. We've all seen conversations on talk pages go much further afield from a specific edit than that did, I think. WP:BITE counsels "listening actively," and I think that's not inconsistent with bringing someone up to speed on the rules. My first post on a talk page didn't connect to a specific edit, either. I didn't know it was supposed to. BYT 14:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brandon, I'm well, thank you. As Wikipediatrix says, talk pages are for discussing articles. The user I reverted was offering his personal opinion, as if in a chatroom, and I didn't get the sense that advising him about the purpose of talk pages would have helped; on the contrary, I felt it would invite more of the same. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK -- thanks for letting me know what you were thinking, I do appreciate it. BYT 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Tobias Conradi

Can I trouble you to review User_talk:Tobias Conradi and offer an opinion as to whether, as CBDunkerson seems to believe, my protecting the page was unwarranted? Thanks. Nandesuka 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cquotes

What do you think of them? I feel they make the material easier to read. Is there policy on this? IronDuke 00:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies for questions yesterday.

It turns out that among some here such marathon editing is not impossible for one individual. --Ben Houston 07:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve

Hi SlimVirgin: Take a look at this please: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve. Be well. IZAK 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semitic

I have read the page semitic yet I'm still confused by it and a debate I heard on TV yesterday. To what exactly does the term 'semitic' refer? The TV claimed the term refers to not only Jews but Arabs and all peoples descended from those in the middle eastern region. I always thought it referred only to Jews (as in 'anti-Semitic'). Do you care to wade into this quagmire and help clear it up? DocEss 17:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll leave this to you. I know how much you enjoy quagmires. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

He started up right after your block expired.

WP:AN/3RR#User:DeathSeeker_.282nd_violation.29_reported_by_User:Nandesuka_.28Result:.29.

Sigh. Nandesuka 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Perhaps I'm being a bit too previous, but I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this New anti-Semitism kerfuffle. I've applied for arbitration [3]. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Wikipedia talk:No original research

Re: DuncHarris and Slrubenstein. Please seem my comments on Wikipedia talk:No original research. I am not attempting to disrupt or troll. Far from it-- I have merely been defending the existing guideline concerning self-citation by "experts" from what seems an underhanded and concerted attempt to change it. At the very least, I am trying to get everyone to follow the proper guidelines when they make such a change.

Likewise, presenting concrete evidence that an alleged "concensus" is no such thing under Wikipedia:concensus is legitimate, at least if the rules and guidelines have any meaning. Sorry if this requires confrontational language, but I do not see any alternative, having tried most of them. As I noted, Duncharris has recently been formally cited for "shenanegans" {Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture}. This does not seem to have slowed his activities in the slightest. Pproctor 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor pushing own article

Shahram Vahdany. Was created by the person himself. I doubt that really he is a person of any note - just a guy that's got a website. The same applies to Mwcnews - I have never heard of it. Should they be listed for deletion? I'm curious what your thoughts are. I've also caught him pushing his website on certain other wikipedia articles. Seems rather dodgy to me. John Smith's 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging living people as Jews

Hi SlimVirgin: You may be interested to know about the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Tagging living people as Jews. Be well. IZAK 08:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Pproctor

Nice answer.  ;) •Jim62sch• 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, he muffed up your post by inter-posting...I fixed it. •Jim62sch• 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel575

Please help. Daniel is vandalizing at Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin and Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. What can I do? --Historian2 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help. Threats and personal attacks from Daniel575. It is getting worse --Historian2 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is so pathetic. Historian2 considers an anonymous internet forum with 6 members to be a notable and reliable source. Moreover, while none of the 6 forum members are Yemenites, he bases the supposed view of the entire Yemenite Jewish community on the discussions between the 6 members of this forum. Writing a whole section about what the 6 members of an anonymous internet forum think is ridiculous and it fails the notability requirement. The fact that Historian2 accuses anyone disagreeing with him of 'vandalism', 'threats' and 'personal attacks' is quite disgusting. It is him who first threw the term 'vandalism' at me, not the other way around. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both of the users for a 3rr violation (not to mention Daniel's personal attacks), just for the record. Cowman109^Talk 20:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original prose

What do you think of the following, added somewhere to WP:NOR: "Write original prose, not orginal research." I suggest this to you because of I've noticed you comment once or twice on the fact that everything here is a "synthesis" (which is true). The friction b/w the fact that wiki is necessarily synthetic and "no synthesis allowed" on NOR has always bothered me too, and has re-occured to me recently as I've worked heavily on a few articles. I know (or hope) I'm not presenting OR, but I am presenting something original (and I want to!)—that is, original prose in summary style, based on sources, but not on original research. Make any sense? Marskell 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel575 again

Once again, Daniel575 has begun to cause problems here. I don't mean to makea fuss over this, but his attitude makes it difficult to make any progress in some articles. I have avoided becoming involved in the article in question for just that reason. Thank you. --Meshulam 20:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben's "big three issues" with NAS article

I believe it is my duty to be as clear as possible with you about my content concerns with regards to NAS. I have tried to summarize it in two major points and one minor one. If we can effectively tackle these these, my long lingering concerns over the article will be addressed. My "big three issues" with the NAS articles are as follows:

• Neutering critics
• Confusing evidence with NAS's interpretation
• Article is about modern NAS theory, not term

What do you think? (And yes, you can immediately delete this message and copy and paste it to the NAS talk page.) --Ben Houston 22:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL technicality.

You seem to be generally knowledgable about policy and legal related issues. Question: In most cases using something distributed under the GFDL makes the entire derivative work copyleft. Does this apply if you use a GFDL'd picture in a document - ie, if you use an image from WP, does that mean that the text is copyleft as well? Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations. Goldenwiki award.

Dear SlimVirgin: Congratulations upon Rudolf Vrba becoming a featured article, you have worked on it for months with amazing diligence, intelligence and above all superlative research and wide backround reading. In honor of all your efforts and in recognition of your contributions to worldwide scholarship that this article will now reflect it is my honor to present you with this Goldenwiki award because: "It is the custom to reward vigorous Wikipedia contributors for their hard work and due diligence by awarding them a fitting barnstar, or other award." See Wikipedia Awards:Award system overview. Mazel Tov ! IZAK 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Congratulations on getting the article to the main page! Haukur 09:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

The discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Tagging living people as Jews] has been going on (slowly...) throughout the day, and is now proceeding further down the page, in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How is this classification different from all other classifications?.

Incidentally: I have read the previous discussions on related topics. I wholly agree that there is a rotten whiff about these lists. However, it seems to me that the accusations that these lists were made by antisemites (or could be used by antisemites) were too simplistic (or partly beside the point...), and ultimately hurt the cause. (I am not accusing you of having made such accusations!) Rather, I would say, what we have here is a grossly immature philosemitism (of the self-directed variety in some, but not all, cases) that adopts many of the habits of thought and discourse of antisemitism.

It is a pity that some of these habits are now common online, and, alas, in the popular media, to some extent. This is all the more the reason why there should be clear policies stating what is *not* to be carried over from elsewhere into here. Bellbird 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Bellbird: I think that that which you refer to was done my me, I tend to write "fervently" sometimes. User:SlimVirgin's style is calmer by temprament and she only shared the concerns I expressed but had no hand in writing stridently, beyond those comments that she wrote herself and were signed by her. You observations here and now are correct in hindsight, but at that time there was some specific concern that SlimVirgin brought forth about a certain non-Jewish journalist who had been falsely identified as a "Jew" in a Wikipedia article who was then subjected to a degree of discrimination and anti-Semitsism (perhaps SlimVirgin remembers the sources). That was the context then, but the newer and enhanced perspectives that you bring with you now are certainly most welcome and hopefully will stir-on the debate, and hopefully will encourage at least a review of the current lax, and highly non-scholarly standards for classifying people as "Jews" on Wikipedia. Your efforts are most welcome and I encourage you to keep on this path. IZAK 09:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lehi

Lehi Note that the page is infringing on many wikipedia policies, and the recent one is extreme WP:POV of opinions stated as facts and in the intro page ! many other issues were addresed by me but are being reverted by a few members. Please take note of this ! very annoying no doubt. Amoruso 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observation

Salam, thanks for your appropriate observation on Wikipedia_talk:Suspected_sock_puppets/CltFn#Evidence. I have responded. Also I would like to know whether CltFn is allowed to remove the sockpuppeteer notice from his userpage. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is he allowed to do that? BhaiSaab ^talk 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blah my mistake

Sorry, I was only trying to create two columns. Copied some bad other stuff too. -- Wikipedical 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help pn Chaim_Yehuda_Krinsky

I need some help on the articleChaim_Yehuda_Krinsky. Sholom is editing the article there in defiance of a consensus, without engaging in any meaningful discussionon the talk page. There have not been 3 or 4 edits yet, but it is heading in that direction. I don't want to get tagged with a wp:3rr Three Revert Rule violation. Perhaps you could step in and help. Thanks--Meshulam 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps

Might it not be best if Wikipedia simply refrained from attaching the label "Jew" or "Jewish" to any individuals? There are just too many explosive cans of worms attached, and, besides, there is the problem of meaning: there are different sources making different yes-or-no statements, but nobody can agree on what the actual statement ("X is a Jew" or "Y is from a Jewish family") actually mean!

When the information is relevant, it can almost always be rephrased in a proper way. Say: "Spinoza was raised in the Jewish religion, from which he was later excommunicated" or (in the relevant section) "Wittgenstein's siblings were in danger of being classified as Jews by the Nazis" or "Wittgenstein, like Wolfgang Pauli, would not be Jewish under Jewish law" (though that would seem to me to be an odd and slightly irrelevant statement to make in a biographical page!) or "Akiva Rubinstein's early life was marked by his strict religious upbringing" or "Max Born's grandmother's delicious kugel greatly helped his brain development, even though he was later to become a Quaker."

(It seems that the cases in which the information is relevant become quite clear this way.)

The standard work-arounds ("X was of the Jewish faith", "X was of Jewish origins") should probably be strongly discouraged, especially when used as definitions; they are awkward precisely because they are attempts at saying something absolute and seemingly transcendental in the guise of nuanced statements of fact.

As for the categories - well, perhaps it is time to propose the whole lot of them for deletion again?

You have experience to spare, so I would appreciate your advice on this. Bellbird 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that this is the proper forum for that discussion. But, to put my position on the record: The term Jew opens no more open cans of worms than the word Christian or Buddhist. The term is not a pejorative unless used with that intent (the same goes with any identification of a person's religion, political affiliation, etc. Why is Jew different?

As for the rather strange statement that it is difficult to define "Jew"... There are people who are objectively Jewish according to all opinions. For example, the above mentioned Chaim Yehuda Krinsky is a controversial figure for many reasons. But nobody disputes that he is Jewish. Feigning the existence of some dispute about Krinsky's religion merely because other people's religions are in dispute is silly. This is true especially if what Wikipedia purports to be is an encyclopedia. In the case of a person who is born Jewish (according to all opinions, for the sake of argument) and who converts to Budhism, it is enough to say that such a person "was born into Judaism, and converted to Buddhism." Easy enough. For someone who was born Christian and converted to Judaism under Reform Jewish auspices, it is enough to say that the person "was not born Jewish" or "was born to a Christian family" (or some such language), and that he "converted to Judaism under Reform auspices" (or some similar language. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Some facts are objectively true, and it is silly to pretend otherwise. My 2 cents. --Meshulam 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Meshulam:

There are at least two issues here that I am aware of. They are not true only of Judaism, but they are true almost only of it, and to a greater extent than in any other religion I am aware of. - (a) The first is whether one can change one's religion. In some parts of the world, the bloke on the street will actually believe that somebody who converts from Judaism to Christianity is no longer Jewish; the contrary is considered a racist opinion. However, as far as I can tell, this is increasingly not the case in the UK, may be slowly ceasing to be the case in France, and has not been the case in the US for some time - even, or especially, in progressive circles.

The causes may be various. One of them may be that, in the US, "Jewish" is seen as a label of origin (just like "Italian"), only more sticky. Another one may be that most interpretations of halakha support this claim. This gets filtered down to the media in a form that is, if anything, strengthened. Thus, the often repeated "a converted Jew is still a Jew", or some extremely odd formulations in biographies in the Guardian. (Perhaps it will be less work to wait until another one comes up than to go fishing from the archives...). There is also the issue that Reform and Liberal Judaism do not insist as much on their viewpoint on this as they used to. (Oh, and there is also Jews for Jesus to make things worse.)

At any rate, you can see why identifying somebody as originally Jewish is problematic when he has converted to another religion, or when he has left the religion completely, and refuses to identify with it any longer (just as a Catholic could).

(b) You can have somebody be a born Jew (namely, someone born of a Jewish mother) according to Judaism, and yet grow up in, say, a Catholic family (his own, which converted, or an adoptive one). Now, this person may grow up without any sense of difference from those who surround him. He may not know his mother's religion of origin, or he may simply know it and not give it more importance than if she had been a Catholic who converted to Methodism. Now, what if this person's "origins" (in conflict with his actual background!) are put in his biography? How will he react, say, not to be "hated for what he is", but to be loved for what he is not - by formation, by belief, and by his own honest and sincere opinion?

  -

By the way, it used to be the case that you could be born a Quaker. By now this rule has been done away with, at least in the UK. Either in articles on the present and on the past - wouldn't it have been a little odd to state that somebody "is a Quaker" or even "was born a Quaker" or "came from a Quaker family" if his family had actually been Methodist, say, or unaffiliated atheist? (You can have a Quaker atheist, btw.) Wouldn't this be not just odd, but quite possibly wrong, if this caused him to be seen as a Quaker not just by (old-style) Quakers, but also by others, who (in this alternative universe) would be well-aware of how the Friends see the issue? (By the way, I do not know whether apostasy is possible in Quakerism, though I suppose it is.) Bellbird 13:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bellbird: I would generally agree with you, but the only time I would not agree with you is when Jews are KNOWN and identifiable as VERY famous Jewish people, such as scholars and leaders, often through their books, achievements and reliable conventional known sources, and are openly part of Judaism, and who thereby clearly qualify per Wikipedia:Notability. Jewish religious figures, well-known religious Israelis or those from other countries and of course famous rabbis will invarioubly be mentioned in articles and will have categories relating to their Jewishness somehow. But actors and sportsman only make being Jewish and Judaism look frivolous, let alone being dangerous in the long run. IZAK 09:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IZAK: sure - obviously one should be able to mention the religion of

religious figures! In some exceptional cases (say, Einstein) it may be worthwhile to note his religious upbringing (none, or next to none, as it happens) and his attitude towards Zionism (positive but complicated). The Encyclopaedia Britannica does this very nicely, without making the statement "Einstein was a Jew." It is not so much that this last statement would be objectionable in this case, but, rather, that policies are very difficult to implement if they are not clear cut. Here is a case were no content would be lost by having a clear-cut policy. (Namely: do not say "X is a Jew", but, if X publicly practices Judaism, or makes a great number of public statements about the issue (and not just when put against the wall!), then these facts (namely, his practice or his public opinions) can be recorded as such. Bellbird 13:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the great danger is in mentioning that (for example) the former White House Press Secretar, Ari Fleischer is Jewish. I imagine one includes in an article about Richard Nixon that he was a Quaker. How is Jewish any different? --Meshulam 11:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Meshulam: At this juncture it is not so much a question of "danger" but of relevancy. Just to illustrate a point: Can it be proven that Fleischer is truly Jewish? If so, it is safe to say that he was not a notable Jew and as far as is known did nothing Jewishly notable. If he is Jewish, then so what? Should we then also mention his shoe size, his marital status, what he did for fun, and the kinds of fashions he wore? What was his blood group or his cholestrol count for those interested in that? How about that he was bald, maybe that should be mentioned or that he tended to sweat when under the glare of the hot lights in the presss room, should all those things go into articles about people? It is only pop culture that cares about absolute trivia which would choke any encyclopedia if all sorts of irrelevant and trashy information (often a sign of very small minds at "work") gets into articles. Sometimes it seems that everyone wants to jump onto the badwagon of being Jewish, and I say that "If everyone is Jewish, then no-one is Jewish." So let's watch out for that one. IZAK 13:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Humanity would lose nothing if the religion of the quarterback you refer to were not mentioned. The point here is whether we can afford the sacrifices that a general policy would entail; if all "sacrifices" are like this one, it would seem we can make them. Perhaps the fact that a certain baseball player in the early twentieth century (if I remember correctly) took Yom Kippur off can be mentioned - it seems like a standard piece of Americana; still, that could be relegated to an article on religion in sports, or what have you. As for the Satmarer Rebbe: your remark is a little odd. Would an article on the Pope be incomplete if it were not explicitly said that he is a Catholic? (Still: I am not proposing you do not mention that "the religion of [rabbi X] is Judaism"; it just seems like a very odd remark to make, because of its redundancy! Bellbird 09:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to respond to Bellbird and Izak at the same time here. A person's religion can be very notable, much more so than his shoe size or baldness. A person is affected by his religion. It informs his views. Also, if the person is remarkable in that he is unique in his field due to his religion (Jay Fiedler is a Jewish quarterback in the NFL, for example) then that becomes notable. Obviously, it isn't necessary to mention everybody's religion necessarily. But if the religion perhaps informs a persons views, then it should be mentioned in an article since it is notable. And it goes without saying that if a person's notability stems from religious issues (like Chaim Yehuda Krinsky, for example), then the religion has to be mentioned. An article about the Satmar Rebbe would be incomplete if it skirted the fact that the Satmar Rebbe is Jewish (both of them, incidentally). --Meshulam 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates

I noticed that you made this comment about the citation templates. I am just wondering why you think they are terrible. I find them useful since I can't remember how to properly cite stuff for the life of me (my Blue Book is a weathered best friend). Additionally, I was hoping that using the templates could allow metadata in the form of html coding to surround the author, books, for searching, indexing and other future use. I.e. changing cites to have html like: <author>Last, First</author>.<title>Title</title> (<pub_date>date</pub_date>). <publisher>publisher</publisher>. etc. would be easy to do by changing the templates. One could then produce a list of things like authors quoted and such. TIA --Trödel 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish vs. Judeo renaming

Hi SlimVirgin: Your learned input would be greatly appreciated at User talk:ThuranX#Your past nominations to rename (Wikipedia:Undeletion policy). See my comments there please. Thanks. IZAK 14:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Rassinier

Hi SlimVirgin: I've seen edits of yours and your name on various pages and talk pages, and I thought I'd run this one by you.

I've left some comments on the Talk page, as I feel the biographical treatment of Rassinier in the article seems a bit overly generous. As I respect your work, I'd like you to take a peek (if you wouldn't mind), and tell me what you think. The original editor has added some citations, and addressed a few issues, but it still feels not right to me. (I'll look for your reply here) Thanks. 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Because you are nice

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Kindness Barnstar, awarded by Aminz to SlimVirgin for responding very warmly and kindly to my comments on the New anti-Semitism article. Thank you! ** Aminz 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I honestly think that the picture is not related to Anti-Semitism but rather to Anti-Zionism per Lewis's definition and since I have seen other similar images in which Bush is drawn badly. So, I don't think there is any discrimination there in the sense of drawing worst images particularly for Jews. So, I was suggesting moving the image to the Anti-Zionist article or somewhere else. But as there has been lots of discussion regarding this picture and you are a kind and I don't want to be painful, I won't press my POV anymore. Thanks again, --Aminz 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, If the "Jews are depicted as backing up Satan, there are Nazi symbols mixed with the Star of David", then per Lewis's definition, I will agree with you. But all I could see was actually the Israel's flag (and also the US flag BTW) and the Nazi Symbols. SlimVirgin, when I touched this article I didn't believe in the existence of anti-semitism among Muslims. After reading Lewis's work, I learned what anti-semitism means and why it exists. I was working on this article first with the motivation of learning something. I honestly still think that image falls into the category of examples that Lewis provides and argues that are not anti-semitism but as I said before, I won't press my POV anymore because you are kind. --Aminz 10:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's personal details

(crossposted from User Talk:Electrawn) Electrawn, I've deleted the edits you made about this topic, because we're not allowed to post personal details of an editor (whether right or wrong; denied or admitted; and whether to argue for or against) without that editor's consent. Please don't post them again, although you're welcome to discuss it with me if you disagree with the deletion (but please don't mention the details during the discussion). Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain which policy/guideline you are referring to, clarification requested. As such, the spirit of any such policy would be to protect user anonymity and privacy. The user has made available information public on a userpage. Attempts were made using available facts on the userpage against facts provided by a reliable source on the notable subject the user is publically accused of being. The facts and conclusions on the talk pages do violate the users anonymity and privacy any more than information that is already publically available via wikipedia. Further, I feel not restoring the comments with urgency may further serve to have others undermine this users privacy and anonymity. Considering the popularity of the outside source making the accusation, time is of the essence to "cork the bottle" before it becomes an internet phenonmeon, or worse, a wikipedia Siegenthaler-like incident. Hopefully the user will just..."agree", making this moot. If you agree with this, please restore the comments. Electrawn 10:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the references to this in policy is here, though I think it's mentioned in a couple of places. The user has not said who he is or isn't on his user page, and has made it clear elsewhere that he doesn't want the issue to be discussed on Wikipedia. You're certainly welcome to e-mail him to make your case. If he agrees, then of course I'd have no problem with the edits being restored. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempts were made to identify what the user is not without identifying the user. Electrawn

I also agree with in this instance with users to "when in doubt, keep out till in." Electrawn

I think we can agree said user is the subject of a "Personal attacks which place users in danger". I would also argue that by the user placing such details on a publically accessable web space (and understanding of the GFDL license), user is giving consent that such personal details may be discussed. If this is meant to prevent speculation of that data to maintain privacy, I can agree to that in some form. I believe that section of WP:BLOCK is meant to protect users from sudden revelation of personal data from outside sources, such as a troll finding out a users name, DOB and Social number and posting it on a talk page, causing harm to such a editor. Blanket protections against controversy about users may be a form of information suppression. This incident itself may be notable to include in wikipedia in an article about wikipedia and/or wikipedia culture. This would trump the users request to not have it discussed on wikipedia. There is no way to verify what the users wishes are without violating WP:BLOCK to give a link. If the user wants to put on a userpage or talk page "Please don't discuss XXX is YYY" or take steps to blank personally identifable information on userpages, they need to do so now to protect themselves. Invoking WP:IAR, do such comments in the long term cause harm to the user or help them? Electrawn 11:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Gregory Lauder-Frost

User:EdChilvers, who has some very obvious vendetta going against this fellow has over-ridden the legal block on this article and flagged it up again. Is this an indication that there is no control whatsoever on Wikipedia? As you had previously commented on the GLF Talk page I thought a comment here appropriate. 213.122.89.216 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xosa

A thought-provoking comment here: User talk:JzG#Avoiding critical mass. How sure are you that Xosa and ZS are one? Is there CheckUser evidence or can you show edit pattern similarities? Sorry to be lazy and not lookit up myself. Thanks, Guy 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for more eyes, since Netscott is questioning the sock diagnosis. Xosa does seem to be remaining tolerably calm about it, so it may not be Stark. Guy 21:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You should know better than that...

Hi SV - I'm surprised you made a new stub type without going through the propose-and-debating process at WP:WSS/P - I would have thought you'd have known better than that! As it is, {{Animal-rights-stub}} is listed at WP:WSS/D as a newly discovered unproposed stub type - please feel free to add any comments there as to why it was created. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops - apologies. My mistake. You did know better than that! Grutness...wha? 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Question

Hi... I noticed that on the following Image:600-restraint-tube4.jpg, you made an edit a long while ago that i think claims the photo is in the Public Domain. If so, could you please update the tag and say why you believe it's PD? Maybe on its talk page? Thanks, Storkk 13:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront RFC

Hello. There is an RFC on this article and another admin recommended that I talk to you about sources. The article is about a controversial website (forum more specifically) and we want to know what would be appropriate information from the website itself that we could use as sources and what would not be. Thank you very much.UberCryxic 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [4]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [5] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On your WP:ANI revert

I'd have appreciated discussion before you restored that long and tedious and off-topic discussion to the administrators' noticeboard which is reserved for incidents requiring administrator intervention. "stop moving other people's posts" is an inadequate edit summary, because you don't explain why you think this is a bad thing. --Tony Sidaway 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you ever need help in learning how to properly editorialize in your edit summaries, you've just heard from the "King". See you 'round Slim! Hamster Sandwich 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WPAR

SV, this shortcut belongs to the Wikiproject Argentina. I restored it to its original destination. Let me know if you have questions.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored it back to your version after verifying that the link did not appear in the Project's Page anymore. In the future, please drop a line to either the original project destination of the redirect or any of the editors to make sure there are no misunderstandings. Thanks!

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all good, use WP:WPAR... I answered here, then I saw your message. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauder-Frost

I'm not going to start an edit war, but I am disappointed by your edit to Gregory Lauder-Frost, even if I understand it. Until this week we had a stub, which was acceptable, what we have now is a hagiography, which is what the trolls wanted all along. No article is, in my view, preferable to an article which misses out probably the single most important fact in the guy's life (as witness the hysterical outpourings on the Talk page). The section you removed was written by William Pietri using sources on Lexis-Nexis, and was a much more neutral description of Lauder-Frost's convicrtion for embezzlement than was originally included. The content of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been posted to Talk, it covers publication with malicious intent, but there is not the slightest hint that a neutral (if unauthorised) biography on a site with a strict and enforceable neutrality policy would be any kind of problem. I guess he'd rather see the facts stated in the context of his custody battle, which makes some kind of excuse, than simply see the record of sequestration of assets (available right now online form the London Gazette) on its own.

What really sticks in my craw here is that it was GLF's supporters who originally included the legal issue, with the blatant falsehood that he was cleared on appeal (the sources indicate that this was absolutely not the case). So essentially they are saying that we either have a lie about his conviction or don't mention it at all - and now they have what they want. I hope Brad gets onto this with some haste, because I have to say that the current situation is really not good. GLF appears to be trying to resurrect his public life by pretending this never happened, in a way that bigger men did not. If he is genuinely distressed by the truth being told I suggest we delete the article entirely, since "Monday Club member convicted of theft from the public purse" is notable in a way that "Monday club member who vanished from the scene for ten years and we're not telling you why" may well not be.

Sorry about the rant, I know your intentions are entirely honourable. But it pains me to see trolls win, even temporarily. Guy 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rat Park

Look, the experiment is either "largely forgotten" or has attracted a healthy 100 citations. It can't be both. Dr Zak 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhism and animal rights

I noticed that you removed the section about the Sikhi view about this right without any discussion. I have made some changes to the section taking the brief points that you made in your comment and added the section to the article having moved it further down. However, I believe that:

• 1. It would have been more courteous and more useful if you have addressed this by way of a discussion so that this matter could have been addressed in more depth;

• 2. that the section clearly addresses the rights of life forms and animals form a big group which are deemed worthy of certain rights and respect as per the teaching of the Sikh Gurus

• 3. the section introduced many "eastern" issues which are well-established facts which were missing previously from this article which need to address a global view rather than just a western view.

I would appreciate if you will engage in dialogue rather than delete large parts of articles without any discussion.

(Copied from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - "Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.")

Many thanks. --Hari Singh 02:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You might want to know this [6].--Dakota 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Help

Hi. Would you be able to help with something? I am contacting you because you are an Administrator with an interest in Biographies of Living People. I'm a regular reader of Wikipedia, and very occasional editor. I have just made my first serious set of changes to an article, about Chris Bryant, who is a UK MP. (Up to now I've just made a few small edits.) This MP is regrettably mostly known to the public for two things: a recent call for Tony Blair to resign (which is why I was looking at his entry), and a highly inappropriate use of a sex-contact website, which included the solicitation of anonymous casual sex and the posting of pictures of himself wearing only underclothing. If you look at the history of the article, it becomes clear that references to the anonymous sex-contact scandal are being consistently edited out, or re-written to minimise them. Most recently one user, Tawney has concentrated on this - in fact, these are his only edits. (Though it may be coincidence, Tawney would be a natural choice of user-name for Chris Bryant himself, or a member of his team, as Tawney was, like Bryant, a Christian Socialist.) It looks to me as if this article is being "spun" (as politicians say). I'm not the only person with these suspicions: at least two other people have expressed similar concerns on the article's "Talk" page. (One of them is a journalist, but I think sincere in his concern, though slightly blunt in his phrasing.) Looking at other articles where public figures have been involved in sex scandals (the obvious immediate comparison is Mark Oaten), it is fairly clear that at least a sentence or two outlining the inappropriate behaviour should be included in the article. For some reason this is being consistently edited out of Bryant's article. The problem for me is that because I'm not really an expert in this, I'm not sure how to proceed. I understand that reverting things back and forth is bad etiquette in Wikipedia, so I don't want to get involved in that kind of thing, but I am worried that if things are left as they stand something isn't working quite right. If you have a few minutes to spare, I'd be very grateful for your comments and advice. Thanks in anticipation.RomanSpa 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-standard FA approach

You may be interested in Talk:Intelligent design/FA attempt discussion 2006. Since it is a somewhat unconventional approach to the matter and you had some prior experience with FAs (and contentious ones in some cases) I thought you might want to take a look. JoshuaZ 02:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's arbcom

I hereby appoint myself as head commissar & supreme overlord of all of you, especially you, SV! El_C 09:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

First on the agenda, purge the Trotskyites. They have zero credibility among the masses. The chances of finding a Trotskyite who wages armed-struggle are about the same as having my cat become President of Greenland. P.S. Greenland has no President. El_C 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] primary/secondary sources thing

Hi Slimvirgin, you made a for me incomprehensible edit in WP:OR. Please comment on the Talk page under the headings "primary/secondary thing" and "secondary sources preferred?" - thanks in advance! Harald88 11:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Slim

Hey Slim, thankyou so much for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I feel completely humbled by the incredibly generous support I received from so many fantastic administrators and editors. It was far beyond anything I even dared hope for. Thankyou for your kind comment and your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. I love the picture of your dog! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hello Slim. Yes, I'm still around, believe it or not. I need to ask you a for a favor, if you can manage to find some time. I'm trying to help a young friend through the FAC process with her article on Jake Gyllenhaal. She's being hammered on issues of prose, reference formats and other such nonsense. I trust your copediting skills more than I do my own. Could you take a look at it this one and possibly give it a bit of copyedit. Thanks in advance. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll ask somebody else then. You might have, at least, responded though.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: greeting card

Eh? —freak(talk) 07:43, Sep. 23, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Rassinier

Hi SlimVirgin,

I asked for your help about this article before, and I'd appreciate your input. I've gone back and forth with the editor of the current piece. He's provided a bunch of citations I requested, but the bulk seem to come from one source, and we're in disagreement over whether it's a _reliable_ source or not. It's been a civil and polite discussion, but not much movement on the NPOV. I'm asking for another set of eyes, since maybe I'm being too harsh or his source would be considered reliable by Wikipedia policy, as I'm a bit new in that regard. Thanks. 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] review

Hi - recalling that we had a brief tiff in August, I would like to apologize for any uncivil or rude conduct on my part, even though I stand by my rationale. Please do me the kindness of visiting and sharing your views at Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2. I need your advice and criticism, and I would be immensely grateful if you could spare a little time on this. Thank you, Rama's arrow 15:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox

I've been asked to take a look at a WP:BLP issue there, which, among other things, involve at least partly using LaRouche sources. As you're an expert in both BLP, and LaRouche as a source, would you mind commenting? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Bot

please let me know which cats that you are talking aboutBetacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC) I will have my bot fix that. sorry about the mistake Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Animal liberation movement

Hi Slim, I see that Category:Animal liberation movement has been merged into Category:Animal rights, this seems very silly to me as there is a great difference between the two. I'm thinking of taking this to Wikipedia:Deletion review as I don't think there was adaquate discussion on the renaming. --Salix alba (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Gurary article

Hi SlimVirgin: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content. Thanks. IZAK 03:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)