User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive35

[edit] re: Your report

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. Kla'quot 05:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homey

How about a motion on Requests for arbitration that he use one account and be on probation? Fred Bauder 10:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A motion and I'll make it. Any suggestions as to the form it would take other than the above? Fred Bauder 11:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_user_known_as_Homey Fred Bauder 12:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your point about deleting pages

SlimVirgin, you made a good point about deletion of user/user talk pages of sockpuppets - I agree with you there. SunStarNet; 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salam

Just wanted to say Assalamu Alaykum. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Banned user talk pages

SlimVirgin wrote:

Fon, are you Gurch? I was wondering about the wisdom of deleting talk pages of banned users. It can be quite helpful to read talk page posts of sockpuppets if they turn up again in another guise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 wrote:

I just came here to point out the same thing. Please desist from deleting users whom I tag as sockpuppets. Raul654 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this has caused any problems; you are of course free to reverse any deletions you think were inappropriate. My intention is not to delete all banned user talkpages, or all sockpuppet pages. I'll try to explain my rationale. The bulk of these userpages are simply being removed from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages; a category that was set up about a month ago and into which all new pages with {{indefblockeduser}} or similar templates are placed. The idea is that once these pages have gone a month without being edited, they are to be removed. The month-long delay gives the blocked user plenty of time to make an unblock request, or otherwise contest the block before the pages are removed. Usually, the userpage will consist only of {{indefblockeduser}}, and the talkpage will have something like a username block message or a series of vandalism warnings. Since the category is relatively new, there are a large number of similar pages that are not in the category because {{indefblockeduser}} has been substituted on to them; I have also been deleting these (if they have not been edited in over a month). I'm sure you'll agree that there is little point in having pages like these; I should clarify that the original idea was not mine (the category is the end result of a series of CfDs and other changes none of which I participated in) – it has just fallen to me to do the actual deletions.

I do, however, understand the problems caused by deleting certain banned user and sockpuppet accounts, and I appreciate the need for these to stay. The pages of banned users (as opposed to merely blocked users) shouldn't be in the temporary userpages category, nor should sockpuppet accounts blocked for being sockpuppets (as opposed to username or vandalism blocks). I have taken extra care not to delete any banned users' pages, so if one or two have slipped through, I apologize. I have ignored sockpuppet pages in most cases – again, it is certainly not my intention to delete them all. However, I have deleted these in some cases – when the page's title is not only inappropriate but extremely offensive; this includes violent personal attacks against specific contributors, anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi sentiments, and other excessive uses of profanity. Most of these are blocked for inappropriate username but some are tagged as sockpuppets. I refuse to believe that there is any valid reason for retaining pages titled, for example, "User:I'm in ur germany, gassing ur jews", no matter what they have done or what the admininstrative need may be. These usernames, sockpuppet or not, were created purely for the purposes of getting attention.

If I have deleted talk pages of banned users (those prohibited from editing under any account by an ArbCom ruling or Jimbo) then this was a mistake; it was certainly not my intention, and feel free to reverse it immediately. If I have deleted sockpuppet pages which contain useful information and do not have an offensive page title as described above, then once again I apologize; these must have slipped through the net. The material on most of these pages seemed to be limited to witty {{unblock}} requests or simply a block message, however if there is more than just that, it negates my argument that the page is pointless – Gurch 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin wrote:

Hi, thanks for your note. I don't see how we can easily reverse the deletions given there are so many; and we may not necessarily remember all the names and know which ones to restore anyway. The thing is that, in order to spot sockpuppet patterns, we do need to keep track of all the accounts that have been used. That's why they're tagged. This applies to blocked and banned users alike. Apparently some Zephram Stark sockpuppet pages have been deleted and now have been lost track of. I don't know what a temporary user page category is, or who would have tagged them as such. Are you deleting user and talk pages? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg wrote:

Gurch, did you not see my comment before from the 18th? You continue to delete user pages of users tagged as sockpuppets; in fact, one user page you've deleted twice already: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Sappho_of_the_Far_Hemisphere Tracking sockpuppets is an important way Wikipedia deals with problem editors; please do not delete any more pages listed as sockpuppets, and please restore any others you have already deleted. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. SlimVirgin, I wasn't suggesting you reversed all the deletions; merely the one or two that you have presumably noticed me deleting in error – as I said previously, my intention is not to delete all sockpuppets and the vast majority of the pages I deleted are not sockpuppets at all. I've decided to pick out and restore the incorrectly deleted pages myself, so don't worry about that. I also don't follow your argument that you need to keep track of all accounts, whether blocked or banned. Most blocked user accounts – tens of thousands – are either one-time vandalism accounts or accounts with deliberately offensive usernames. While some of these may have been created by the same person, I still don't see the need to retain all the pages; if another account appears that is only being used for vandalism, or has an unacceptable nane, it is obvious that it needs to be indefinitely blocked and that is what will happen – who the account happens to belong to is irrelevant. I do understand the need to keep the usernames of sockpuppets in cases where (a) their edits are not obvious vandalism, and (b) the username does not violate username policy – because in these cases, it will be necessary to look at edits from previous accounts to determine whether a block is necessary. Although I'm not entirely sure why that entails keeping a userpage for each user, rather than simply listing the names somewhere. (Why not archive them at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or Wikipedia:Long term abuse, for example?)

Again, I did not intend to delete any sockpuppets that didn't have unacceptable names, but it would seem that some have been deleted anyway, for which I apologize. The temporary userpage category is Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, into which all pages with {{indefblockeduser}} are placed. As I said before, the creation of this category and the steps leading up to it were nothing to do with me; I am simply following the instructions on the page and deleting those not edited within the last month. I have also deleted some pages not in that category, some with names that violate the username policy, some with a subst-ed old version of {{indefblockeduser}} which doesn't contain the category, and I accept full responsibility for these.

I will continue to delete userpages for which I think deletion is appropriate; however I accept that a few of my deletions were out of place. I understand Jayjg's argument and apologize for deleting the same page twice. I did read Jayjg's first comment and I thought I'd replied to it; evidently it slipped my mind.

Per your various requests, I will review the deletions (all 20,000 of them) and pick out the problem ones. I'll restore any user/talk page pairs that are tagged as sockpuppets, unless they have unacceptable usernames that are actually offensive. (As I stated before, I refuse to believe there is any need to retain a page with a name like "User:I'm in ur germany, gassing ur jews", no matter what). I don't quite understand the need to tag accounts that have done only blatant vandalism as sockpuppets, as they would be indefblocked even if they weren't sockpuppets, but as there seems to be a demand for them I will restore them anyway. I hope this is an acceptable compromise – Gurch 06:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin wrote:

Thanks for your note. How it works is this: when a sockpuppet account is identified, it is tagged as "suspected or confirmed sockpuppet of X". That user/talk page is then placed in the X sockpuppet category. Any editor who suspects X is editing with a sockpuppet in future can go to the category page, look through all the sockpuppet accounts, check out the editing style, compare for similarities, go to the sockpuppet's talk page, see which other editors have posted there and about what issues, and so on. All of this helps with identification. Therefore, please don't delete any user or talk pages that are tagged as sockpuppets, whether or not they have offensive user names. We need to keep all the pages tagged as sockpuppets. It is not the separate accounts that are important in themselves, but their link to the sockpuppeteer. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining, I follow your argument. I've just put together a script which will go through my deletion log and hopefully get me a list of all the pages that were tagged as sockpuppets; this will probably take a few hours, then I'll be able to restore them. I'll be more careful in future – Gurch 07:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for thinking you were Fon, by the way; I don't know why I thought that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean this guy? Yes, that threw me a bit. And from someone who identifies sockpuppets as well! At least you didn't tag me as one – Gurch 07:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do?

Hi, Slim. We've been having trouble with a POV troll on the Tiananmen Square protests page. He isn't vandalising as such, but the edits he's making are completely unreasonable. We've tried talking to him, but he refuses to listen.[1] To be fair it isn't a content dispute - it's essentially vandalism. It would be like someone writing on the Holocaust page that it never happened, or the victims were all criminals.

Even if he isn't breaking 3RR, it is disrupting the page. Is there anything you can do about it? Seriously I doubt any kind of mediation or non-punitive admin action would make him change. If you look at the talk page and his contributions, it's obvious he only has one agenda. Plus he's the guy I was talking about making the sockpuppets - you can find them on the talk page. Please reply on my talk page - thanks. John Smith's 11:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

Wrong place and out of sync - I tried to change it as it wasn't in context and looked rediculous. It was comletely in the wrong place and was doing 50 things at the same time I apologise. FK0071a 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

I haven't played in a sandbox this much since I was in kindergarden. Too bad the neighborhood cats all thought it was a litter box... but, I digress. I think. Some of the other editors thought asking for your feedback on where things now stand would be prudent. -- Kendrick7 03:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, & question

SlimVirgin,

Thanks for the warning -- I didn't know the rule.

I also don't know how User Talk works -- if I reply on my User Talk to the message you posted there, do you automatically get notified?

TH 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hey Slim, wondering if you could advise me. I've been involved in a couple RfC's recently, and my feeling is that the RfC process is flawed, possibly broken, mainly due to lack of participation. I'd like to discuss this with others in an appropriate forum. To that end, can you tell me 1) Has this discussion already taken place and 2) Where is the place to begin/continue it? (Your thoughts on this issue, needless to say, would be welcome.) Thanks... IronDuke 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NAS

I appreciate your providing me with the full quote, as I didn't have the source at hand. However, the position taken there does not enjoy a consensus, as I have now noted at the NAS talk page, with such notable scholars as Klug and Wistrich in seeming dissent. I've solicited your views as to how to address this within the article. Thanks much for taking the time to flesh this out with me. Dasondas 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My comment

I was being facetious with that comment. Some of the sources I read that have discussed the Gary Weiss Wikipedia entry in outside websites appear to believe that there's a "conspiracy" by high-level administrators to "protect" the Weiss entry. I don't believe that to be true. I can see in past actions involving that article that administrators have acted to protect it, but I don't believe they were doing so out of some sort of "conspiracy." I believe that it's just an example of extremely busy Wikipedia administrators trying to do their job to keep Wikipedia running smoothly and just didn't have the time or reason to investigate further what might be occuring with that particular entry, one of thousands that each administrator monitors. In that case, it's up to "regular" editors like me, who in addition to our regular projects (military history articles for me) sometimes try to assist the community in finding and resolving abuses occuring on Wikipedia. The Gary Weiss article, to me, is an egregious example of someone using Wikipedia for self-promotion and putting a lot of time and effort into "gaming" the Wikipedia system. I believe the "system" works and that we can bring that article back into the community, put it into the proper form for Wikipedia, and let it be one more small step in the continuous effort to, not only improve Wikipedia's body of knowledge, but to further improve Wikipedia's credibility in the world on-line community. Cla68 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and attention on the matter. There won't be a problem if whoever or whomever it is that's trying so hard to keep that article in it's present form allows other editors to add citations or delete uncited text and place additional information (as long as it's cited and credible) to the entry in accordance with Wikipedia's established guidelines. Up until now, that doesn't appear to have happened. In accordance with Wikipedia rules, I won't try to find out exactly who (if it is a particular person) may be behind what's going on with that article. But I will try to correct the problems that have been ongoing with that article since its inception, using Wikipedia's system for conflict resolution. Cla68 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you have a look?

Hi, Slim. you offered your assistance when I first joined Wiki, though I haven't needed it until now. I wrote an article, James Robert Baker, that is currently a FAC. I was wondering if you could look at it and comment. One area of concern is the fair Use of the images I have added. I think they are covered by FU, but others seem to disagree. Some clarity would be appreciated. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Thank you!Jeffpw 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Square a circle

I just want to workshop this with you if I can. Would you agree that sources have to be evaluated in context? By which I mean sources need to be evaluated depending upon what they are telling us and how it is being used. It's a neutral point of view idea I guess, we have to report a source accurately, but we also have to report a source based on the weight of what it's telling us. A USENET posting is never a reliable source for the unified theory of everything, but is a reliable primary source for establishing a biographical detail of an uncontroversial nature. [2] as an example. Like I say, it needs to be contextual, and I think the NPOV policy protects against using a source in an unbalanced way, which closes the loophole that you seem to perceive with this issue. Appreciate your thoughts here. Steve block Talk 20:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I can see the circle will never square, so I'm giving up the ghost. I think you should probably take the page to the wider community now though, or pronounce it done, it's starting to overcook. I'll be happy simply editing as I usually do and fighting my corner when I have to, and respecting whatever consensus springs from the discussion. Steve block Talk 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite templates

Please see Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid and change to first citation as an example. Thanks. -- Avi 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Say it ain't so

[3] You want this in there? All the talk, and we leave "psst! ignore the page if you don't like it"? Marskell 11:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] delete all mention of "primary", "secondary"etc. ?

Hi Slimvirgin, if I recall well, you once suggested that the policies can maybe be simplified as regardsd "primary", "secondary", "tertiary" etc. sources. I thought so too, and got the idea that it wasn't very useful, but nothing came from it.

Now my opinion on this matter has been strengthened by a new attempt to Wiki-lawyering that IMO really heads the wrong way, although it looked like a good idea at first sight: clarifying the issue of "primary sources".

See my comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia#Delete_all_talk_about_primary.2C_secondary.2C_tertiary.2C..._sources and please tell me what you think.

Regards, Harald88 19:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Newman

I really see no need to threaten blocking my editing--the reason i had asked for a delineation of what was problematic viz BLP was precisely so i could know which sources to use or not use. A threat seems a bit drastic--as simple "please find an alternate source" would be sufficient, and given the dozens of references I have already added to what was a largely unsourced article, i think it's an unfair commentary on the good faith I have demonstrated thus far, despite the constant hostility and personal attacks etc from the demonstrably fanatical Newmanophobes. Thank you.BabyDweezil 23:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How does one deal with plagiarism?

Please see the discussion page here: Talk:Tillie K. Fowler. I was assessing an article for the wiki biography project and found a paragraph (unsounced) lifted directly from a newspaper article about the subject. I informed the biography project, but don't know if I have any further obligations. ThanksJeffpw 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Reich

Hello SlimVirgin. I have reviewed your request for mediation here for Wilhelm Reich. If you are willing to proceed with the mediation with me as mediator, please leave a note on my talk page. I hope to come to a solution that is acceptable to everybody involved. Thanks. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok SlimVirgin. If you could please place your arguments on this page and add it to your watchlist, we can proceed with the mediation. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet user pages

Per your request, I've restored all user and user talk pages I deleted that were tagged as sockpuppets – Gurch 00:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, I've just discovered Misza13 deleting them all again! I've explained to him why this is a bad idea; I'll edit the category page to hopefully stop this happening – Gurch 17:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin wrote:

Thank you, Gurch, for sorting this out. Where was this proposal to delete pages originally made? I think it needs to be stopped, because all kinds of pages were deleted that were very important to keep (some of the most notorious sockpuppet accounts were deleted), and even non-sockpuppet pages need to be kept too. If a very troublesome user is indefblocked, we need to keep the evidence of his talk page discussions in case he turns up again. Deleting history means that history will repeat itself. :-) Where can I post centrally about this to ask people to stop it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through Misza13's deletions and reversed those that shouldn't have been deleted. I've added a prominent note to Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, which should be quite hard to miss. I'm not sure where best to discuss the new process, though I suggest you speak to Pathoschild, as he originally created the category, and so should be able to point you to the discussion leading up to its creation. Pathoschild says (at least, his latest edit to the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages page says) that his bot is set up to remove sockpuppets from the category, which is useful if it actually happens but Pathosbot doesn't seem to have edited since October 28th, and there are many sockpuppets wrongly placed in the category now, as Misza13 has just found out. I'll leave it up to you whether you wish to discuss it with him.

I have recently discussed related issues with the IRC cabal, and in general they seem to share my view – that while keeping userpages of indefinitely blocked users is useful and necessary in particular cases (such as with banned users and sockpuppets), most of these pages are unnecessary and should be removed after a reasonable time, and furthermore pages with offensive names should be speedy deleted immediately as attack pages. This category seems to be aiming to formalize the first part of that (the second is already covered by CSD G10 if you take the page title to be part of its content, which seems reasonable) – Gurch 23:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin wrote:

This can't be decided privately between a few people on IRC but has to be discussed on Wikipedia, because it's affecting a lot of people, and important talk pages are being deleted en masse. Where is the best place on Wikipedia to discuss it centrally? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, of course I wouldn't dream of using IRC for making decisions; I was just seeing what other people thought. I guess if you want to discuss things centrally you have to bring them up at the village pump; this presumably comes under policy. I'd also recommend speaking to individuals who have been involved, though, as that's often the best way to see where they're coming from – Gurch 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small favor

Hey Slim, I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.

Thanks man! Sharkface217 05:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non negotiable policies in practice

On Talk:China, we have a user who is claiming the non-negotiableness of V/NOR/NPOV in support of his position, and being strongly opposed by other users. There has been some sockpuppetry back and forth, and the situation is actually rather more muddied than I'd like. The user in question is practically unblockable, so as a sort of reverse last resort, people have decided to call in some mediators instead.

The problem is that mediation is all about helping people to reach a negotiated consensus, and that is now apparently forbidden by the rules this user is quoting.

I think you were one of the first people to come up with the non-negotiable concept, based on your experience in mediating disputes. Would you care to use this opportunity to demonstrate how to mediate the situation, based on the new rules?

Thank you for your time!

Kim Bruning 22:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Thank you! Kim Bruning 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming NYC Meetup

Hey Sarah...long time no see...You might want to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chip.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chip.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Megapixie 07:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for 30 years I have avoided having my picture circulate, due to my attendance at various meetings and events for research purposes. The Internet has forced a shift in that policy. As far as I know, there are only two other photos that pop up on the Internet. One is from a LaRouche publication, the other was taken by a photographer at a speech I gave, posted on the sponsoring organization's website, was stolen, and is used without any permission on several websites. Neither image meets the fair use guidelines. I will object to their use on Wikipedia. PRA as a policy does not allow unrestricted use of its materials, so I suspect we will have to stop allowing use by Wikipedia of any of our images. I find the uber-libertarian concept of not allowing any restrictions on images posted on Wikipedia to be asinine. PRA gave full permission to Wikipedia and any non-profit use. The Internet is full of profit-making leeches using Wikipedia material to suck people into advertising websites. I find it shameful to have my work and the work of PRA being used in this way. Thousands of Wiki volunteers having their time ripped off by charlatans. I know you are just the messenger here. Hope you are OK otherwise.--Cberlet 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Hard-Protection

Hello. I am requesting that prior to a policy round table (or rather, round robin - lol) regarding new policy (specific in addressing biographies of living politicians currently running for office) that current articles be hard-protected (I was thinking frozen, but I am not sure that is an applicable term here) prior to tomorrow's election. When we consider the possibility of an 11th hour vandalism blitz attack, and its possible effects in possibly altering the outcome of an election, it is in WP's best interest to limit possible damage. Of course, this is something of a radical new step, and some might claim that this interferes with the free commerce of ideas in an article. I would submit to them that, at this late date, nothing new has been added (with the sole possiblity of late endorsements by various groups), and nothing new has been discussed.

I am not suggesting that such a hold be placed on the discussion page - only the actual article should be frozen for a period of say, 48 hours. This period of time allows for the election to proceed without undue influence from WP. Afte the results of the election are known (or the 48-hour protection), the article becomes editable again.

The articles that i have been working on that would certainly benefit from such a trial policy are the Peter_Roskam and Tammy_Duckworth articles. I imagine that there are other, equally contentious political charged candidate articles that would benefit from this action. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest possible convenience. Arcayne 19:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

It is totally inappropriate of you to wheel war when an uninvolved admin responds to an AN/I thread expressing the view that someone has exhausted the community's patience. You are a friend of Homey's and not only on Wikipedia. You have helped him with the disruption; you've edited many of the same articles where the subjects ended up making legal complaints to the Foundation. You are directly involved in this situation. Please revert your unblock and have respect for the community's processes.

• (i) What are you talking about, re: wheel warring?
• (ii) How would you know who's made legal complaints?
• (iii) The banning administrator expressed the view that "Gehockteh leber" was a sockpuppet. No one has seriously made this claim. Moreover, HotR is not under a hard ban. You may wish to contact FreakofNurture and FeloniousMonk about respect for the community's processes. CJCurrie 22:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised someone has made that suggestion, given the current feeding frenzy at AN/I. I will reiterate that "Gehockteh leber" is not currently under a community ban and is not a sockpuppet. Can you explain why he is blocked? CJCurrie 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the account was blocked because someone thought "Gehockteh leber" was a sockpuppet. It isn't. What you're suggesting is a community ban, which is not in effect. CJCurrie 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So ... he's banned because a small number of admins say so. Who exactly is Wikilawyering here? CJCurrie 23:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Myatt

I'd just like to say *thanks* for your efforts in editing that entry and in striving for NPOV. I agree about too many of the sometimes annoying *blue links* and putting the stuff about Greek translations in the first paragraph. Also, I stopped being stubborn about my belief that Myatt hasn't rejected Islam (he has, it seems) so I won't be doing my usual reversion of edits that I've been doing for six months or so. One minor point, though - I see the Amazon link you gave mentions Long & Myatt re some Black Book or other, but I can't find any reference to this anywhere else, certainly not in the British Library. Also, Amazon doesn't give any details such as ISBN. Coolmoon 06:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recognition

A posse ad esse, a verbis ad verbera: for your ability to cut through it.

We've had differences, but that doesn't stop me admiring your dedication with Attribution. I'm giving you my traditional award for people who have the unusual ability to cut through it. (Sorry I can't do cute moving things :( ).--Doc^g 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

[edit] Heya

Image:Explode-05-june.gif I followed the source of the animation at the top found this cool thing and could not resist awarding it to you. Your friend.--Dakota 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:China

One note, which I thought I should leave here so as not to unncessarily antagonise other users: You mentioned the article Names of China and that it uses "Central Kingdom". I had a look through the history and noticed that this had been added (and removed and added and removed and added...) by the same user who is now using User:doningj: See, for example, this diff: [4], by User:Lafleur127, a banned sockpuppet of our friend User:JackyAustine, who, it is thought, is the puppetmaster of all the other sockpuppets including doningj, e.g. User:Jalamen2, the immediate predecessor of User:doningj as he admitted on Talk:China.

Anyway, I'm glad that this episode seems to have been resolved - thank you very much for your efforts. Your version is very fine indeed. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for solving that whole issue. If only all of us can be as patient and impartial as you are :D --Sumple (Talk) 07:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it won't last

I think we have as many views on how to arrange this article as there are editors working on it. Jayjg won't be happy unless David Duke is the first person mentioned in the article, Kiyosaki won't be happy unless Desmond Tutu is, and that barely scratches the surface. I'm not at all into the cult of personality, and would much prefer facts and concepts be prominent. Round and round it goes. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of political persecution against animals

Hi SlimVirgin!

I wonder if you would reconsider the deletion of this list. The fact that some extinct endangered species were once hunted down to the point of extinction or near extinction with the blessing of authorities is somewhat interesting, and might have some encyclopedic merit. The entries were not sourced, but I think they are verifiable.

The article has the following animals mentioned:

• South China Tiger declared a pest by Mao and hunted. Source: [5]
• Caspian tiger Russian government ran a plan to exterminate them. Source: [6]
• Thylacine. Disliked to put it mildly by farmers and considered a destructive animal. Source: [7]
• Wolf. Article says that they are hunted in Europe, I know they are a bane to sheep farmers in Norway, and organized small scale hunting of some flocks has at times been endorsed by the Norwegian government, much to the chagrin of the Swedish. At the moment I can produce a Norwegian newspaper article, [8], but I think an English one can be found as well.

Now, I agree that the title is awful and some of the categorisations are quite dubious, although I admit that I have some trouble finding a good and reasonable alternative. Nonetheless, I believe the article was submitted as a good faith attempt to cover this issue, and has therefore been edited by a fairly diverse field of contributors. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for undeleting! I moved the article to List of politically endorsed extermination of animals, but I'm not entirely satisfied with that title either. I have worked on expanding and sourcing the entries, although the list still is incomplete, and still has a {{listdev}} template on it. Still, I hope this is better than mere listcruft. Ah, it feels good to be writing encyclopedia articles instead of reading arbitration processes. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Hi SlimVirgin,

Please have a look at [9] and compare it with persecution of Christian section above it (especially the size of the two sections). As a summary it is written in a very conservative way. No menion of Christian forced conversion of Jews , or their restricting the place of residence and profession of Jews, leaving aside the anti-semtism. Maybe a sentence or two would make it better. What do you think? Cheers, --Aminz 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you could also help me with having a fair representation of Muslim persecution of Christians I would be thankful. I have tried for a long time to clarfy that there "were" social and legal disabilities but rarely violence. It seems that the Christian editors there have no respect for the words of Lewis. I seriously need help in reaching the tone of those sections into a neutral one. Thanks. --Aminz 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice talkpage BTW :P --Aminz 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for your note. I am sure if Arab Muslims are accused of new-antisemitism because of having double standards, then if we want to avoid double standards, attention should also be made to Christians even though Christians have been recently nice to Jews. Cheers, --Aminz 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, do you any friendly editor like you, who is both knowledgable on this and with whom I haven't had any edit conflict before? --Aminz 07:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I know you are unique!! I noticed that in the first encounter and never doubted it afterwards. Honestly, I just want to have a fair representation of the history based on writings of scholars such as Lewis. Thanks again. --Aminz 07:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] factory farming

before making your changes it would have been polite to take peek at discussion, i discussed my changes and quite a few people agreed. the separation in industrial agriculture for crops and factory farming for animals does not make a lot of sense to me.trueblood 07:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC) i was unhappy with the article factory farming because it seemed written from a animals rights point of view. i think it is linked to the title. no farmer would call his operation a factory farm. the term includes criticism. that is why i first moved it to intensive farming, but that was not the right place. i started the article industrial farming because it seems a slightly more neutral term and wanted the article factory farming just to be about the usage of the term. trueblood 07:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hey, works for me like this, thanks. is it possible/necessary to retrieve the old factory farm discussion ?trueblood 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've been stealing from you!

Hope you don't mind, but I've robbed your Penguin and lightning! --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] got your message

SlimVirgin,

That "this link" you mentioned didn't work for me -- but no matter -- here I am, read to discuss, I'll put a watch here for a while.

TH 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

...

Sorry, I do not want to expose my email address.

Is there a reason why we can't discuss the issues in public?

TH 02:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture

Do you have any firsthand experience in production agriculture? It is frustrating to see your adherence to such biased opinions in the Factory Farming article.

Vaarok 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Another thanks for your help at the China article. We'll see if the new compromise holds, but at any rate, you've done a wonderful job coming up with innovative solutions to problems. I hope one day I'll be able to be as fair and impartial as you are in working with other editors. Heimstern Läufer 06:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)\

[edit] Thanks for your support

Hi SlimVirgin. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for supporting me for adminship. I consider it a real honour to have had you nominate me, and it was clear from the comments in support that your judgment weighed heavily in my favour. I look forward to continuing to work with you and I'm sure I'll be seeking your counsel as I slowly get to grips with the tools. Now, more than ever, please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 07:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support of truth and justice

Thanks for taking a stand on the issue of the Argentine prosecuter's religion in the Hezbollah case and not standing idlely by. --GHcool 09:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial agriculture

I really don't think your image belongs at the top of the page as the first image. It's a valid image, assuming it was in the criticism section. However, the article is industrial agriculture, not criticism of industrial agriculture, and the first image should reflect that. I see that you told the user who changed the image to provide a source for his image. Then again, what sort of source is the one for your picture? The site it comes from is an anti-factory farm and will (obviously) be biased against it. The pig picture is an extreme case, and hardly the average condition in a factory farm. As for the picture you removed - you said he needed a source to "prove" it was an example of industrialized farming. The picture is clearly factory farming - what else would it be? It might be biased in that it has better than average conditions, but your picture has far worse than average conditions. In its current context with its wording, the picture is clearly not NPOV. --Karafias ^{Talk • Contributions} 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Hate

User HKelkar already involved in various content and personal disputes - arbitrations has gotten a step further calling me a Pakistani when I have explicitly mentioned that I hold an Indian passport

"My Indian passport does not list religion.Is your's special"

.This type of name calling is not very dissimilar to the Hindu chauvinists in India one of whose sites (I won't mention the site name here for providing them undue publicity - google search can tell) says "All muslims should go back to Pakistan and Bangladesh where I am sure they will be welcomed."I would like you to take cognizance of this user and others using the right wing Hindu rhetoric and calling names to those who don't agree to their narrow version TerryJ-Ho 11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you continue to prod him about being Jewish? Huh? Answer that.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He's Hindu. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong, I'm the only Hindu user in this dispute.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Read properly - the last comment (where I mentioned the Jewish aspect) as - "My Indian passport does not list religion.Is your's special" on that thread was October 29 - He has updated them twice of his own accord.In fact he wants to show himself as Jewish and support the Hindutvavadis as a neutral party.Most authors monopolising the Hinduism and India related articles are Hindus.You are not the only one,though there is no reason why that should matter..India is highly represented on Wikipedia and Hindus being 80% of the population are sure to edit in a higher volume.Many of the edits are done by Indian diaspora influenced by organisations like the RSS.Even in any case,if I or any editor had queried Hkelkar's religion - which seems a bit weird because he claims to be Jewish (their population in India is in some thousands)- on the other hand writing almost all the articles with visibly a right wing Hindu discourse - Hkelkar has responded with such heinous characterisations that deserve no place in academic space saying "Muslims in Pakistan were fishing out Hindus by raiding villages and asking men to drop their pants/dhotis and checking to see if they were circumcised? If so, the pass, if not, then instant beheading.The Pakistani Jews managed to get away with it coz they were also circumcised and were thus mistaken for Muslims by the Muslims."Hkelkar adds about killings of Hindus in Partition of India quoting Khushwant Singh's Train to Pakistan without consistently showing the source - Here is the source and it says “The fact is, both sides killed.” again he says "Regarding passports, did you know that Pakistani passports force their citizens to officially acknowledge Mohamed as the one true prophet, even if you are a Hindu, Christian or Sikh Pakistani?" - All the above are false and concoted and inspite of my asking to refrain from hate speak - He calls me a Pakistani - in short a Traitor..He should pay for such hatespeakMerryJ-Ho

Carry on; don't mind me. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional texts

I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing.

(And I'll answer your arbcom questions today. Sorry - they're the hardest ones on the page, and I need to actually take care with them in a way that I don't with some of the others, which tend to either have obvious correct answers or, to my mind, fundamentally misunderstand arbitration) Phil Sandifer 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally got the arbcom questions. Phil Sandifer 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: use of themselves

"The phrase 'the organizations themselves have said ...," for example, is standard English. I don't really see how anyone could misunderstand the sentence in the policy. On the other hand, the phrase "authoring organization" is completely unclear and sounds like someone has made it up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you have used a plural. You would not say "the organization themselves", you would say "the organization itself".

For the record, I did not state "authoring organization" but it is entirely clear, if a highly specific and intelligent use of English. I think we need more than two opinions on this matter as others have expressed an interest to clarify it. As stated, where conflict arose due to the generality of the statement was where it was interpretated that "themselves" only permitted the authoring individuals or organizations to use self-published material - which is, of course, ridiculous.

Drop "authoring" individual or organization into Google [10], [11], [12] and I think you will find it is widely and commonly used particularly in Governmental and Educational circles.

195.82.106.244 12:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you may have cracked it by the use of "authors(s)". KISS etc.

195.82.106.244 12:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hafele-Keating experiment sprotection

Maybe I'm being dumb here but sprotecting Hafele-Keating experiment locked out Uknewthat editing as an IP - but he kept right on editing with his user ID. What's the point? All anon's got locked out while the trouble user kept right on editing. (I know he's banned now but still...) Shouldn't this be unprotected now? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Uknewthat is blocked indefinitely. Is he continuing to edit? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support on my RfA

My RfA has passed with a vote of 71/1/0, and the mop is in my hand. Thank you for your support. Thank you also for your previous offer to nominate me, even though I did not feel I was ready at the time. I will be starting slow, and I will appreciate any guidance or correction that may be necessary as I learn to swing the mop. -- Donald Albury 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

No problem. Removing personal info takes priority. -- Steel 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal RfC on Talk:Palestinian refugee

Hi, SV. I note that in the past you've made contributions to Palestinian refugee. I'm attempting to encourage reasoned discussion in this thread. If you had the time to review my comments and respond -- or just offer your opinion on any other aspect of the issue -- I'm sure the addition of reasoned commentary would be valuable both for its content and for it encouragement of other editors to follow suit. Parallel reversion wars are also taking place at Palestinian exodus and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. I hope patient argument will defuse them, and I hope you will find it possible to participate. --Rrburke 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V

Please leave my temp page where it is. Why silence comment? If you have constructive comments to make, even if they are disagreeing with me, make them. I've sick to the teeth of trying to get you to edit constructively and collaboratively with me on this. Why won't you even try? It's not as though we have diametrically opposite objectives! jguk 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The impression I get is that it is always you who reverts me (often v. quickly). Maybe you could consider not reverting me, and just argue your case on the talk page (at least sometimes) - if others agree with your position it will happen anyway, jguk 11:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policies

I have already stopped; see Wikipedia talk:List of policies. But please don't make pot/kettle remarks. For instance, this one is an intended compromise, to move the "core" stuff unto a separate page like WP:TRI. (Radiant) 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I know of three that aren't - copyright, WP:NOT, and WP:OFFICE. Please see Wikipedia talk:List of policies for a more central discussion. (Radiant) 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCF as a source

In what sense is CCF not a valid source, but BUAV and PETA are? Both sides are horribly POV, and both misrepresent the truth, and both have a well-identified agenda. Can we show Covance pictures, but not mention activistcash discussions of the Silver Spring monkeys? My reading of Wikipedia ways is that ALL POVs are to be represented, not just the one you agree with. BTW, CCF produces the activistcash web site, they are one and the same. --Animalresearcher 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elton John

You recently unprotected Elton John from anon edits. I think this was a mistake; it always has been, and is now again, a target for constant anti-gay anon vandalisms. There's no reason to think this will ever change, so I think this is one of those articles that always needs sprotect. Thank you. Wasted Time R 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. Wasted Time R 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

I have changed the introduction to Muhammad al-Durrah.[13] I feel the current version is better grammatically and in terms of POV, though it may be less pleasing stylistically. I am notifying you because you have made significant changes to the article in the past. All the best, KazakhPol 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel575's user page

I realize that this is a strange request. Daniel575 recently said goodbye to Wikipedia (though I doubt he will truly leave). He blamed his disappearance on, among other things, personal attacks leveled by me against him. However, I don't believe I have ever personally attacked him. Rather, that statement is, in and of itself, a personal attack against me. Can that statement be deleted from his user page? Thanks.--Meshulam 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Meshulam 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He did the same with me. I am on his page as an attacker, yet I think he thinks that if you disagree with his views, you are attacking him. Yossiea 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

In light of yesterday's dispute, I wish to point out that there was discussion on the topic before my change, here. I also wish to point out that I have no personal experience with Jguk; while I will not assume he (or anyone else) is disruptive simply because you (or anyone else) say so, neither should his agreement with me on this issue be taken as me endorsing his actions you object to. In the dispute itself, it appears we're simply working from different definitions here (which implies it may be a source of confusion for novice users). (Radiant) 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I think you're in error on the vandalism warning on my user page concerning David Duke. I simply made a revert to a previous version due to vandalism. I'm now being attacked on my page by an IP user as a result. --Hatch68 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My apoligies, it was not you, it was the IP user. --Hatch68 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

No, I did not violate the rule, but thank you for the heads up. KazakhPol 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on the talkpage and I contacted two users, Amatulic and HighinBC, for another opinion. If you're interested in why I asked those two users, they regularly provide third opinions on WP:3O. KazakhPol 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I did not violate WP:3RR. If you go back through the history of the page you will see that I am correct. Please remain civil. Accusing me of "offensive" editing is not productive. KazakhPol 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

[edit] If you have a moment...

You mentioned by e-mail that you'd try to reply, but I haven't been around the page. Could you explain why you think this is better than the more limited caveat that was in place previously? Marskell 08:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

When I said the previous was limited, I was thinking in the literal sense of having fewer words. By directing it at pop culture, I guess you believe it's more limiting, which is what we want. You can see a new suggestion on the page, which has that in mind. Marskell 10:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm going to have take a raincheck on WP:ATT discussions for now. Keep up the fight for good sourcing and remember what I suggested: don't compromise unless you believe in the wording yourself! Marskell 07:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input would be appreciated

On the List of notable supporters of PETA article, regarding weither we should include deceased people or not. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 16:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

I reverted twice. This is the last time I will ask you to go back through the history of the page. If you falsely accuse me of violating WP:3RR one more time I will pursue dispute resolution. Your complete lack of civility is distressing. KazakhPol 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the logic in what you posted on my talkpage. WP:3RR applies to reverting to a specific version of a page, not to a user. I reverted once to this version[14] of the page - here[15]. After that I discussed the page with Jayjg on the talkpage and came up with a compromise between the two versions of the page - this version[16]. I then reverted twice - here[17] and here[18]. Do not accuse me again. KazakhPol 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad al-Durrah. KazakhPol 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Khazakh, it seems obvious to me that WP:3RR applies to more than three reversions to the same page, not to the same version of a page. (For example, the policy reads "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period.") Slim was being very civil in warning you on the talk page rather than reporting you, and I am sure you two can work out your dispute if you approach it in good faith. (Dispute resolution is a good start). Good luck, TheronJ 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegation of Anti-Semitism to Muhammad

Hi SlimVirgin,

Again, its me! Again asking for help! Editor User:Arrow740 is saying the following about Muhammad : "he had a mission as a egomaniacal anti-Semite with an unhealthy lust for booty.", "The Quran contains numerous anti-semitic statements that shape Muslim views of Jews to this day."

SlimVirgin, you are quite knowledgable about Anti-Semitism. It is a western phenomenon. "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", Claude Cahen states. Bernard Lewis states that "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history."

SlimVirgin, I know that you are knowledgable about this issue. Please, in fairness, look into this. The few other admin's I've contacted thought that that is the POV of some scholars but it is NOT. Muhammad's attitude towards Jews was not racial but rather politicial. SlimVirgin, I can not seriously work together with this editor. Please help me.

Thanks

P.S. for relevant diffs, please see [19].

--Aminz 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore this. I feel better now. --Aminz 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts to Leo Frank

You reverted this article based on "standard view". Please provide sources before reverting and also discuss on the talk page, this would work much better and make for a better article. Thanks --68.9.116.87 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gah!

Slim, I got totally busy! I was actually going to tell you a fair time ago, but things have gotten a bit out of hand and I haven't been editing Wikipedia lately (I bought a house and arranged a wedding in several months...). On the off chance you are upset, I'm sorry! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! :-) Ta bu shi da yu 09:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

I need help from a credbile editor with some clout on this site. I am dealing with a couple of anarchist POV-pushers on communism and socialism who-- unsurprisingly-- have been able to dupe some admins on the noticeboard to side with them. [20] The situation reminds me of dealing with the LaRouchies before the arbcom sanctions were effective. If you have the time, I'll really appreciate it if you take a look. Regards, 172 | Talk 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Hi SlimVirgin: Care to comment? Please see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. Thank you. IZAK 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights

Although the Manual of Style states the sections can be merged, I believe it is misleading. As I stated in the talk page (in case you did not read it), linking to the home page of a external site is not considered further reading, but instead an external link, as you are not telling the reader "Check this page for more information", but instead, "go to this site". The article itself has just too many external links, and they should be trimmed to, at much, a dozen. We are not a link directory, and several can be removed without hurting the information already existing in the article. I suggest linking directly to the Open Directory, like dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Animal_Welfare/Animal_Rights. What do you think? -- ReyBrujo 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

Hi SlimVirgin, I know youre busy but youre always making sense on the other articles so Im asking what you think on this one Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident.

Heres another edit by User:Nielswik.[21] He has a certain philosophy I think.Opiner 04:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Edit

Not all animals used in scientific procedures are killed. Almost all that are killed are euthanized. By law specific exceptions must be made not to euthanized animals in scientific procedures, and this portion of animal welfare law is particularly inflexible. Yet you insist on putting the words killed and not euthanized in the introduction to animal testing, reverting changes from euthanized to killed. As a matter of fact, there is no official count of animal deaths in testing in the USA, as only animals used are tracked. I don't see the content suffers either from removing it or from changing it from killed to euthanized, and insisting using your editorial position at wikipedia on including it and insisting on using the word killed is POV, you might as well change it to brutally murdered. --Animalresearcher 11:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping Wikipedia. I saw some ugliness associated with this page and wanted to offset it a bit by providing a link to an article I saw that especially noted efforts in Wikipedia in the area of Israel/Arab relations (it was all about how the NPOV efforts were creating a uniquely useful resource in establishing a mutually useful story that could join two sides together). But I can't find it now. But when I read it I thought, oh I bet slim would like to read this. It makes people who act like her seem like the new peace-makers. But I can't find it. Oh well. Thinking of you. Keep up the good fight. Even if we disagree a lot about ATT. 4.250.177.201 04:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)

[edit] Antisemitism

Please help with putting a summary of newantisemitism here [22] if you have time. Thanks --Aminz 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But you are an Admin SlimVirgin. I can not believe what I am seeing --Aminz 00:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice and excellent sources [23] indeed. Much better than Lewis and Stillman.--Aminz 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text of a deleted article

Is there any way to access the text of a deleted article? Is it possible for administrators? I need the text of "Quantum mechanics explained" for my personal notes. Thank you. --DenisDiderot 09:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

FYI, I'm sending you an email. JoshuaZ 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And have done so again. JoshuaZ 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Hi Three, is this you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slim, no that isn't me but I do know him. I told him that he should register with Wikipedia. I actually know a few editors from here in Rhode Island. Cheers!--Tom 12:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Tom. As a matter of interest, how could you know who someone is based on the IP address? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This editor asked me to look at some articles he has edited and I have actually stood over his shoulder while he edited. Hopefully his recent blocks will slow him down but knowing him personally, I doubt it. He actually reminds me of myself when I first started on her a year ago. Like I said, I told him he needs to register and not wheel war but he told me to pound sand. I am glad to be back but will not be editing as much. Take care. --Tom 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love the penguin. How do I get one?

(By the way, see HAPPY FEET.)

Hey, I know you're busy, but when you have a chance to spend some time with them -- hopefully this week -- I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at these questions [24] on the RFC at Talk:Zionism. Peace, BYT 11:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. Enjoy the holiday. BYT 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pl read history before passing judgements

I haven't reverted Ingrid's page. I'm ok with MIchael's changes and only removed anon's citation from a letters to the editors. surely you don't intend to have double standards and allow that as a reliable source for her original quote? Which other articles are you talking about btw. I'm sourcing from the US Senate proceedings, and others which i've mentioned in the PETA talk page. Please don't keep pushing your POV when sources contradict. thanks. Idleguy 19:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I fear you are starting to sound like launching another set of carefully worded insulting personal attacks, talking about english. I'm not game. Instead of constantly informing me to improve the english, you could do it yourself with the edit button, like the other person did, instead of reverting and then starting a conversation with me daily bickering with me that the english is bad. I've quoted the sources (reliable) on both pages but you accuse me of POVs; it only confirms that you have POVs to push. I prefer if you'd address the issues on relevant talk pages henceforth. Tx Idleguy 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ALFRobinWebbSHAC.jpg

At the request of another user, I have marked Image:ALFRobinWebbSHAC.jpg as replaceable. If you'd like more information about this, please let me know. When you uploaded it, the replaceability of an image was either not a criteria or not enforced as it is now. --Yamla 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "The image is not replaceable for obvious reasons. He's addressing a SHAC meeting, which is why the image is being used. It's only replaceable if you're prepared to pay to restage the meeting. At the request of which user?"

The problem is that the image also did not require a detailed rationale which meant that it was not clear that this is why it was being used. As an image of any old SHAC meeting, it is certainly replaceable. If it is being used to depict this specific event, it is not. You can check my discussion page for who requested it be tagged. --Yamla 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I did check your page but I can't see anyone asking that it be tagged. Can you tell me who asked? It is not replaceable "as an image of any old SHAC meeting." It has to be Robin Webb addressing one. Please read the policy. The image must be "reasonably" replaceable. You can't expect editors to stage special meetings and invite particular speakers just so they can reproduce a shot."

This is clear now, but until you added the rationale (which was not required when you uploaded this image), it was not clear that this is what the image was being used for. I agree, it is clearly not replaceable. The problem is entirely resolved to my satisfaction, thank you. As to the user, it was User:Aditya Kabir. The problem was that I marked one of his images as replaceable as it was a film screenshot used solely to depict a living person (not the character the actor was playing). In this case, the image is replaceable. The user was having a hard time understanding but I believe has a better understanding now. --Yamla 21:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dancingpenguin.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dancingpenguin.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Psychonaut 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lighteningstrikeanimation.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lighteningstrikeanimation.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Psychonaut 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Disappearinggif2.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Disappearinggif2.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Psychonaut 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on Israeli Apartheid

SlimVirgin, I was working on that section, with references to apartheid. Can you kindly give editors a chance to add to the article? Thanks. Ilan Pappe has plenty to say about Israeli Apartheid, kindly review in detail: http://www.imemc.org/content/view/17103/1/ Kiyosaki 04:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)