User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive37

[edit] Inappropriate talk Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Malber's continuing disruption

Can you please review this and possibly remove it? User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington appears to be confusing WT:RFA with WP:RFC. This discussion has woefully gone from a discussion on the nature of my question to an attack on me. You know me and you know my history and you know that I'm the last one to cry, "Rogue admin!" but Mimsy's behavior of late has become bizarre. I've even been blocked by this administrator in order to prevent me from participating in discussion at WP:RFA. Thanks! —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected Edit page

Hi! See this and if you can, link it into the main page. T'would be a good idea to disimbedd the three 'In-Your-Face' tags to a seperate sub-group, and then fix up the order in this to match. Also, is there a tag which asserts something smells of pov, along the lines of {{Fact}}? I'm rushed and can't find right now. Thanks // FrankB 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Dancer

This User is clearly a sock puppet for someone. Is there no way it can be checked? He is changing articles on right-of-centre Tory groups in Great Britain so that fundamental details relevant to them have been removed altogether. The articles naturally become demonised. The only other Users I can see who relentlessly did this before were Guy Chapman, Ed Chilvers, and Homey. Chelsea Tory 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, right. Anyone whose political opinions lie to the left of Atilla the Hun is clearly a sockpuppet of Stalin as far as you're concerned :o) Guy (Help!) 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • SV, I just noticed this here - someone inquired on my talk page once if I was the same person (apparently we both speak Spanish). Yikes - no, I'm not a dancer, don't agree with her assessment of the best countries for beer, and have spent one week in the UK. Yikes - too much similarity having another Spanish-speaking Sandy on board. Sandy (Talk)
    • Having checked around more now, if there's ever a checkuser, I hope someone will make sure I'm notified and included, so I can be absolved - because there is mention of socks, it's troubling me that someone asked once if we are the same person. Sandy (Talk) 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hey Sandy - chill! There's no need for a checkuser and no-one looking at out edit histories would ever think you and I were the same person. To my knowledge, this is talk page is the first time we've ever edited in the same place!
      • As Guy says, the user who is complaining about this is someone with a political agenda proudly displayed on their user page, with no interest in maintaining civility or NPOV. Ignore him, like I am. Let the "Real Conservative policeman" tend to his lonely beat. Happy editing! --SandyDancer 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Karenga4.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Karenga4.jpg, 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. — BigDT 01:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School

Appreciate some help at the above page, I think I've got a POV or OR pusher, who is attempting to slowly insinuate the school endorsed a drug culture based on their schooling their. It's quite a complicated debate, you may need to read the whole talk page to get the gist of it all. Anyway, your thoughts would be most welcome, I've had an RFC up for a couple of weeks and gained no responses. Steve block Talk 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your congrats

Hi SlimVirgin :-) Thanks for your congrats and your support. I found out I got the seat by seeing your congrats on my talk page! Wishing you a Very Happy New Year! --FloNight 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

lol ;-) FloNight 13:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Trying to improve the above.

Encountering arbitrary & capricious Reversions.

Your expertise (against "troublemakers?") would be useful & certainly appreciated by me.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden/Lotuslander

Check the earliest edits to the article in the deleted edit history, looking for a specific red-linked user. I'm not convinced in the present case, and the user's other edits are too old for checkuser, so the only thing that could verified is a "likely" finding based on the geographic location of the IP address. Dave702 and Lotuslander and Howlder are certainly knowledgable about wiki procedures and the Marsden case, and I doubt they are either of the two admins in good standing who previously edited the article. Thatcher131 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your explanation

Nice. Jkelly 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jkelly. Thank you for writing that; it's well-stated and considerate, and is especially nice to see given that I know that you have disagreed with parts of it in the past. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. Well, I was a late convert, and you know what they say about the zeal of the convert. ;-) Seriously, I've been slowly persuaded by all your arguments, yours and Greg's, and also by feeling guilty every time I went to the Commons and saw how much easier it was each time to find appropriate photographs. If everyone relied on fair use, that resource wouldn't exist, and that helped me to step back and see the bigger picture. I'm sorry it took me so long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

Could you please look in at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#2 disputed links? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim, did you read the linked article? I don't uniformly object to World Net Daily being linked (though I happen to think it is often gutter journalism), but in this case, the linked article is dreck. It is an exaggerated rehash of someone else's opinion column. There are plenty of better pieces from essentially the same point of view already linked. - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Dancer et al

I thank you for your message. I will see what I can do for you but I am pressed for time. It is not just the Left who play a prominent part in British politics but also the Right. Therefore some degree of balance is required. Sandy Dancer has significantly demonised the Conservative Monday Club article, removing information on the organisation which appears to me, at least, to be part of its story. Guy Chapman completely deleted the article on Western Goals (UK) without proper procedure, and redirected enquirers to the Western Goals Institute which he subsequently put up for deletion. That failed so it was then "re-edited". Now the well-known Conservative Democratic Alliance has been flagged for deletion by Ed Chilvers, who has been on some sort of crusade against all those involved in these right-wing Tory groups since arriving on Wikipedia. In addition some of his more revealing remarks on the deletion log appear to have been removed by...Sandy Dancer, who, as it looks like the proposal for deletion may fail, has announced that he will now "re-edit" the article. It seems to me that if these few Wikipedians don't like traditional Tories (those who Guy Chapman refers to above as "to the right of Attila the Hun" - rather giving his own position away) then you should delete all these articles rather than permit their demonisation and the unfair slurs on the thousands of members who must have passed through them all. Chelsea Tory 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wish to place it on record that I completely refute all of the above allegations.--Edchilvers 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Me too. All total nonsense and should be treated as such. People should be allowed to participate in the Wikipedia project without harassment - SlimVirgin, please don't help him do so to me or anyone else. This "Real Conservative policeman" seems to want a police state on here!
• I removed a long post by EdChilvers (containing quotes from a third person) because I thought they shouldn't have been posted, particularly not in a AfD debate. If that is enough for this person to instigate a witch hunt against me, then you are letting CheckUser be used for blatant fishing. Don't give him the satisfaction. --SandyDancer 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that Ed Chilvers has also called for the deletion of Michael Keith Smith, but even more interesting that Sandy Dancer makes the following comment on the deletion log: "This looks like a re-run of Gregory Lauder-Frost". From what I can see Sandy Dancer did not exist during that argument. Chelsea Tory 12:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yawn ... but I have read the discussion, after you accused me of being EdChilvers' sock, didn't I? As I have previously explained. You are really clutching at straws now. Pathetic, tiring, and dull. Stop harassing me. As you will see from my edit history, I make legitimate edits to Wikipedia. You do not - you are just here to push a partisan line. --SandyDancer 12:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made legitimate complaints to a responsible administrator. I hope they will be investigated. Chelsea Tory 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think any admin is going to do a checkuser for no reason and simply to allow you to go fishing, you are deluding yourself. This is frankly ludicrous - you were asked to provide diffs backing up your accusations and you aren't able to, because the whole thing is groundless. You yourself have been accused of being a sock puppet - and look how you responded, here and here. Why was that "childish", and this "legitimate"? Just another example of your double standards. I am tired of being harassed by you. --SandyDancer 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User KazakhPol

Hi SV, Thanks for your edits etc on the page about the Tahrir party, related to the unfounded claim that they are terrorists. I suspect you hold similar views to my own about the user KazakhPol; he lacks civility, launches regular personal attacks, is very biased, and uses very poor english. I thought I might warn you that he seems to be moving in on a number of pages related to Islam, I have noticed that he has started deleting whole sentences on the page Caliphate. Aaliyah Stevens (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

He also making regular accusations of terrorism against HT in the following articles:

• Al-Muhajiroun
• Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami
• Terrorism in Kazakhstan
• Terrorism in Uzbekistan

And contributed to a ludicrous article about a respectable british lawyer named: Makbool Javaid, and provides references in these articles that don't say what he claims, or are not credible references, or sleectively quotes misrepresenting the reference.Aaliyah Stevens 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did not start the page on Javaid, and the references support the content on those three pages. KazakhPol 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of dictators

I'm really annoyed.

After I and many others worked hard to make this article truly excellent and indeed an exemplar list on wikipedia, the same people that tried to get the previous list deleted come along a pull a scam like this.

I don't know if the deletion was marked at the top of the page, but I check the article from time to time and didn't notice it. They picked the holiday season when no one was looking, lost the vote, deleted anyhow using the same argument that was explicitly rejected by the community now and before. They gave no notice to the people who were watching the article. Deteting admin Doc Glasgow had previously been heavily involved in the article and should have recused himself anyway. Hundreds of hours of people's time have been deleted on the whim of a admin with in axe to grind.

Carefully worked out criteria, methods of discussion, 120 references, dozens of articles linking in, a fantastic resource.

Again to refute the silly argument made by some that dictator is an "inherently POV" descriptor, simply search wikipedia for the word dictator and notice how many people are described that way. Britannica, Encarta etc all do so, as do all news outlets.

What can I do?

juicifer 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, count me in, and let me know, pls. Sandy (Talk) 15:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, why did I know 172 would be there. Deleted in spite of a Keep consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators. Sandy (Talk) 15:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Slim

Can you help me ?

people are using WP:OR and "www.Palestinieremebered.org" instead of WP:RS here:

Palestinian_exodus#The_so-called_.22Suba_Ruins.22

Thanks, Zeq 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim: There is a problem with the WP:OR policy which may allow users to enter via the caption OR info that has never been published (because it is not true) . The policy must be changed so that caption info (and connection of the caption to the photo) will have a primary source verification. (other than wiki editor) see above link. Zero argue that the photo is true because he trust the wiki editor who loaded it. Zeq 07:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with Ancient Historical Persecution By Jews?

Appears that Sjakkalle wants to delete this article -- please don't let that happen.

One thought on the article. Ancient Historical Persecution By Jews is quite an awkward title. It certainly isn't intuitive as a search term. Any thoughts on what would make a better name? Majoreditor 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Messianic Judaism

Template:Messianic Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I am sorry that I have not yet had the time to catologue my complaints. With three children my time is limited. In the meantime you might care to assess the comments made on my Talk page and also the comments on the Talk page for the Western Goals Institute as well as the remarks on the AfDs for the Conservative Democratic Alliance (now failed) and Michael Keith Smith]] (current). It is important to check the histories also as some remarks are removed after they havd been posted. Chelsea Tory 11:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe I am a sockpuppet of EdChilvers - see here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Initiate a discussion about it. If you don't genuinely believe I am a sock puppet, and you are only doing this harass me, stop doing it. In other words - put up or shut up.

Likewise if you genuinely believe some of my edits have been unhelpful - either discuss on the talk page of the article in question or just go ahead and make edits. If you don't have any legitimate reason to disagree with any of my edits, and are only posting messages about me here and elsewhere on Wikipedia in order to be abusive, stop doing it. --SandyDancer 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

happy new hear!!! Blueaster 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people

Hi SlimVirgin: Have you ever had a close look at this strange article: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. The heading stinks. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? I doubt that the originators of this article and those who worked on it have rational objectives. It should be merged with something else involving Adolf Hitler or even deleted for its stupidity. (If not, how about Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Zionism and racism

Hi SlimVirgin: Shouldn't the Zionism and racism article be renamed to Allegations of Zionism and racism as with Allegations of Israeli apartheid? What are your thoughts? IZAK 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

Happy New Year, Slim. All the best for a great 2007! El_C 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mala Zimetbaum

of possible interest to you, see also User talk:IZAK#Mala Zimetbaum. Cheers, Tomer^talk 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why did you remove this comment? Thanks, Dar-Ape 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally would have given the benefit of the doubt and simply responded like this, but I respect your judgement. Thank you for the prompt reply, Dar-Ape 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AlexLinder.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexLinder.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. MECU≈talk 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AlexPacheco(PETA).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexPacheco(PETA).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 that provides substantially the same information. 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}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. MECU≈talk 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About WP:ATT, could you maybe provide the rationale on top of the talk page?

Hello, I really like the WP:ATTRIBUTE proposal, and since I've messed it up completely, you might want to fix it up again :) However, it would also be nice, if you would place a nice infobox on top of the talk page that explains what were the motivations and what is the intention of the proposal. --Merzul 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to take a look at the proposal at WT:V to discourage removing unsourced information, which comes from a recent sex slang dictdef AfD spree. Jkelly 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny Swastika

Hi SlimVirgin: Take a look at these templates:

• {{Hindu Links}} (top left)
• {{Hinduism small}} (bottom)
• {{HinduFestivals}} (top right)
• {{Hindu Deities and Texts}} (top right)
• {{User WikiProject Hindu mythology}} (left)

with the displayed prominently. Honestly, of all of Hinduism's symbols' did this one have to get "headline" billing on these templates? Alternatives are aplenty if one were to look around on articles listed on {{Hindu Deities and Texts}} where there are dozens of less offensive symbols that could be chosen for the same purpose. While the swastika may be ok with some Hindus, it should not be flashed around "in all innocence" because for the rest of the world that was caught up in World War II it was the symbol of literal EVIL, DEATH and DESTRUCTION emanating from the Nazis. It was Hitler's personal diabolical "symbol of choice" and for that reason it is VERY far from neutral, no matter in what context it is used. It violates Wikipedia:Civility to have it displayed in such an "in your face" fashion on these Hindu templates, giving it a dubious "place of pride" it does not deserve. Need one say more? IZAK 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi: NOTE: Talk about this is now centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism#Use of Swastika. Thanks. IZAK 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Image Format

This is why it was protected. This group of IPs keep coming in, all Uifan (talk • contribs • logs). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello SlimVirgin and a Happy New Year! --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there cool breeze

I kvetch about it enough that I've finally made a small change to the request for comment template. Wasted effort, scrap everything? - brenneman 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recomendation

Post-Zionism, Post Holocaust

by: Elhanan Yakira

Get this book: http://www.am-oved.co.il/HTMLs/product.aspx?C1010=17211&BSP=13483 by Prof Yakira. It will go a long way to get academic backing to many things you already know as well as some new ones. Zeq 07:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forking Religious anti-Semetism / Anti-Judaism

I'm just going to fork these for now as I'm rather conviced these two terms have distinct meanings. By wikipedia's own definition, anti-Semetism "can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." Anti-Judaism, as a theological position, has nothing to do with any of that. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When I restore Anti-Judaism in the next few days, there will be plenty of sources attesting to the difference. I will hope you will not continue blanking the page and replacing it with a redirect, as this could be considered vandalism. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Teitelbaum

Hi Crz, would you mind reverting this back to the pre-3RR version? It's currently protected on Chussid's version with the link to the personal website. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not going to do that. You may very well be right, but I am not editing the protected page crz crztalk 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You protected it. :-) It's quite normal to revert to a pre-3RR version before protecting a page, because otherwise the protection rewards the violator. But it's up to you; I don't want to interfere with your admin decisions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be tantamount to joining the editwar. Figure it out, ask some nonjews for input on whether the links are up to WP:EL, and then we can all remove it together once it's unprotected. crz crztalk 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For an unbiased look. I like to involve a gentile or two in intra-Jewish wars to try and be neutral. crz crztalk 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting there are hardly any Jews that do not hold pre-conceived opinions on the issue of Israel and Zionism, which is what this war comes down to. crz crztalk 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• on a completely unrelated matter, c r appears to be trying to start an edit war on Moshe Hirsch. perhaps a responsible admin should pre-empt him by blocking the page? :)  ⇒ bsnowball  16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BigDT's RfA

I agree, sort of, with your comment here, but what do you want to do about the problem? It's not the candidates' fault that RfA regular voters tend to over-represent IRC fairies, wanna-be admins desperate to increase their Wikispace edit count, and non-writers in general, with the result that the process becomes an exercise in groupthink. Wikispace edits are wonderful. Article writing? Anyone can do that. Most Wikipedia editors, the ones who actually create the content, wouldn't know where RfA was. I go through periods where I apply 1FA and the like, but it never lasts. I'd hardly ever support anyone, and what good would that do for something that is supposed to be no big deal? Looking for some good ideas, Yours grumpily, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for helping with Yzak

I am hesitant to get into any kind of dispute since I'm still ... a little off balance due to personal messes. :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Some advice

Thank you for approaching me in a civil manner about it. Is there some formal process to take Barnstars away or something? I didn't think Doug Bell should be blatantly trolling WP: Gundam on his userpage like that. Yzak Jule 10:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to. Thanks for being helpful instead of just screaming at me. :-) Yzak Jule 10:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism

Hi SlimVirgin,

Please have a look at this [1]

Please read the "Bernard Lewis, whose Jews of Islam..." onwards. Thanks --Aminz 13:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help:Talk page

SlimVirgin, Help:Talk page has thousands of incoming links - until these are fixed, there should be a redirect in place to Wikipedia:Talk page. I'll create one shortly. Is there any reason not to have one, other than the fact that it's a cross-namespace redirect?Picaroon 22:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I already added the redirect before I came here; hope that's okay. There's also some confusion in the talk pages for these pages (which are about talk pages). Wikipedia talk:Talk page redirects to Wikipedia talk:Talk pages, while Wikipedia:Talk pages redirects to Wikipedia:Talk page. The plurality of the project-page and the talk-page-for-the-project-page should probabbly agree. —DragonHawk (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that so quickly! —DragonHawk (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection on Anti-Zionism page

Is this necessary? At what point will it be removed? I left a comment for you on the talk page. Thanks, Mackan79 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case regarding User:Gnetwerker block

I have filed an ArbCom case regarding your role in the block on my account. You are hereby notified. -- Gnetwerker 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AnnaReynolds.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AnnaReynolds.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. MECU≈talk 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AnyaRudiger.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AnyaRudiger.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation 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. MECU≈talk 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia in PDF available?

I have this new idea, to have a link on every page and when you go there you'll see the article as PDF. What do you say Slim? Do you support my idea? Thanks, --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC at Steven Hassan article.

Hello SlimVirgin. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at my RfC at Steven Hassan? Thanks much. Tanaats 16:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query regarding names in other languages

Hello SlimVirgin,

I have been having a discussion with a fellow editor over here and we seem to disagree about whether or not to put Sunita Williams' name in Hindi on her page. I have been arguing against putting her Hindi name, because Williams is a citizen-by-birth of the USA (please see the aforementioned talk page for more details). Her Indian link is through her father who was an Indian immigrant. Just for the sake of uniformity and for future reference, I would like to know if it is appropriate to include names in the native tongue of people who are the second (or generally, n^th) generation offprings of immigrants.

I would appreciate your opinion on this. Is there any WP rule/guideline that can throw more light on the issue? I read this and this, but couldn't find a lot of relevant information.

Thanks, Max 10:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

CC to: User:Bhadani, User:Aksi_great

[edit] Jeremiah Duggan

I happened to look at this page the other day and I note that some editors are persistently adding material that is not connected with the subject. On first glance, I thought that they simply lacked a source, but on a closer look, I realised that the stuff they are trying to insert has no connection to Mrs Duggan's views, but is a rebuttal of what her views are about. My argument against including it is as follows:

You have a statement X about a person Y's views about a thing Z.

Any "balancing" (or POV, if we can frankly call it that) must address X, not Y's views about Z. Any rebuttal that says that Y does not hold the views on Z will constitute original research in the context of X because you are creating the thesis that your discussion of Y's views on Z rebuts X. I think this is an important issue because it happens all too often.

Compare this:

SlimVirgin said in the New York Times that the world is flat. However, the world was shown by a 1989 National Geographic Survey to be round.

In my view, this is completely disallowed by WP:NOR or ought to be. Britannica would allow it because, although reasonably balanced, its pieces are given as the opinions of expert authors. Ours purport not to be.

This though would of course be permissible:

SlimVirgin said in the New York Times that the world is flat. However, Grace Note explained in a follow-up article in the Washington Post that the world was shown by a 1989 National Geographic Survey to be round.

I don't suppose that this standard has much hope of being applied across the encyclopaedia, because the "rebuttal style" of article writing is so beloved, and original research is very hard to root out, given that most people don't realise that simply "writing what they know" is in itself an indulgence in OR, but I think that this clear case should be decided in accordance with the view I've set out here. Grace Note 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernadotte

SlimVirgin,

perhaps you've forgotten, but we interacted briefly on the Bernadotte talk page, maybe a month ago. I was tagging some stuff about allegations of Nazi sympathies, and you asked me to hold off, while Zero did some research. And I did delete the tag. Zero came back with better sources for the article.

But the edits that Amoruso is edit-warring over now are essentially those that Zero generated. Mackan's in the clear here, no matter what is happening elsewhere in wikipedia. Jd2718 06:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd like to know that I mentioned you in my 3RR report of Amoruso. (The comment is both unfavorable and favorable to you, in the same sentence) Jd2718 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz concentration camp

Hi there. I have taken the liberty of reverting your edit to the first paragraph of this article. I recognise, and apologise for, the fact that this also removes a perfecly valid link which you added.

But the absolutely critical point, and the whole thrust of the article, is that Auschwitz-Birkenau was not a concentation camp, it was an extermination camp, and the distinction is overwhelmingly important. Auschwitz I was certainly a concentration camp, and Auschwitz-Monowitz was a work camp. These were all different categories, with different kinds of prisoners and different treatment meted out thereto. If you choose to change back, please do not lose the word "extermination" from the opening paragraph.--Anthony.bradbury 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hizb ut-Tahrir

You are going to request admin action against me for what exactly? The last time I edited Hizb ut-Tahrir with anything either you or AS contested was January 9. Do you really think issuing vague threats against me is going to intimidate me? I want an answer. KazakhPol 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I see now. It's alright for you and AS to say I cant speak English, but when I say it its not okay. It's alright for you to remove references without explanation, and thats not vandalism. It's alright for AS to alter my comments, post copyvios, and makeup quotes. Nevermind that the last time I did a reversion that anyone contested was January 8. KazakhPol 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You may not have edited the main Hizb ut-Tahrir website since 9th Jan, (which is only a few days ago), but you have reverted my corrections of your unreferenced or incredibly referenced allegations of terrorism against HT on:

• Al-Muhajiroun
• Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami
• Terrorism in Kazakhstan
• Terrorism in Uzbekistan
• not to mention libal against Makbool Javaid

or you have removed directly pasted quotes of mine in these articles, without discussion, despite my attempts at discussion, and have accused me of faking quotes, when they exist in plain english in the referenced article. In reality your allegation of FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) being on the state department list of terrorist groups appears fake, and then when proven, you tried to 'hood wink' the issue by talking of a so called military faction of FIS on the state departments list, which also appeared to be faked, because it doesn't exist either. The documents you reference to prove your points; don't at all prove your points, and in fact got used against you. There must be a wiki policy on users who repeatedly claim references that clearly don't actually exist SV??? Aaliyah Stevens 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that AS is accusing me of libelling someone in an article I did not even write, it seems that talking to either of you about anything has exhausted its usefulness. You both bore me with your endless pseudo-outrage. Oh, and it now appears that AS either is using sockpuppets or has a great admirer. See Special:Contributions/193.115.70.42. 'Cheers', KazakhPol 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my computer didn't automatically sign me in-big deal, sockpuppet? NO. You may not have originally written the article on makbool javaid but you kept restoring the libelous version. KP now keeps edit warring and adding HT is a terrorist organisation in the above articles.Aaliyah Stevens 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Icke

Sorry, i dont know how to use user talk so i hope this is the right way to respond to a message. The reference you used is pathetic. If you only need to add a reference to biased opinions then we can all just write our opinions on other websites and use those as references in articles. David Icke is far from anti semetic and if you actually listened to what he says it goes beyond our little worldly religions. I wont bother arguing with you because you are obviously a facist moderator.

[edit] hi

I have replied on my talk page. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Stalking"

Actually, Slim, I only responded to your 3RR post because your summary of events that I was peripherally involved in (re: the Israeli Apartheid page) didn't strike me as accurate. This hardly constitutes "stalking". As a general rule, people shouldn't threaten vexacious complaints to silence criticism. CJCurrie 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

You've made 3 reverts in 24 hours at Folke Bernadotte. I know that you are an experienced editor and you know that edit warring is unacceptable. It fosters bad feelings and prevents proper resolution. You ought to be using dispute resolution like mediation when in a conflict, not aggressively edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that it was not appropriate for you to make a comment regarding Mackan79's block considering that you were just as guilty. MetsFan76 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User box 45 000e

Just FYI - I've reversed your change with regards to the comma, as all of the edit-count boxes use spaces instead. If you're interested, there was a discussion at Template talk:User 3 500e with regards to this matter. (Nice colour, BTW.) Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Standards aside, I'll try to write some code so that you (and others who might want it) can have the boxes display a comma. I'll let you know how it turns out. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, try this out if you like: {{Template:User 45 000e/test|comma}}. It will display the 45 000 edit count box with comma formatting. (The default, {{Template:User 45 000e/test}}, creates the existing ISO format box.) I've put it as a "test" template for now, to see how it works. If there are no problems, I'll extend the coding to all of the boxes. (Actually, any text after the pipe character will trigger the comma, while leaving it blank will go with the default. I wanted to create something that will ensure that users who prefer a comma can select it, without requiring existing users to make a change in order to keep what they already have.) Let me know what you think. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dilpazier Aslam

I would think you have enough on your plate to deal with as it is, considering the number of users who are angry with you over your edits to Anti-Judaism, but if you really wish to report me, I will not try to convince you otherwise. I think you may be interested in voting on the AFD for Dilpazier Aslam. I would be curious to see which way you vote. I am also curious as to what you are reporting me for but I guess time will tell. KazakhPol 22:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makbool Javaid

I have listed Makbool Javaid for deletion. I do not see notability. Accusing me of disruption is not very nice. Cheers, KazakhPol 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mackan

I tried to direct this to you on Dmcdevit's talk page, but I think it got lost in the threaded comments:

• Look, I am not going to argue the block was unfair, but he seems willing to come back to the discussion on the talk page, and talk without reverting. I think it's possible to make progress by talking. But it's a problem that a primary editor is missing. Would you be willing to appeal to Dmcdevit for a reduction of Mackan's block to 24 or 36hr, so that we could resume discussion with him included?

I know there is bad blood, and would understand if you disregarded this. On the other hand, I see more willingness to discuss now then before, and Mackan will be part of the discussion. 3 full days seems long to wait for a missing participant. No negative reflection if you disagree. Jd2718 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm going to disappear for a day. When you get something (from the publisher, or somewhere else) would you mind alerting me? Thanks Jd2718 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Kitsune

I've replied to your message on my talk page. Shimeru 06:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin the Chosen

Not clear if you're accepting comments - but you did invite questions on this one User:Gavin the Chosen - he has other non-functioning accounts, and the userpage seems to say he suffers from adhd. Can you supply a link on my talk that helps to explain this? Thanks.--Shtove 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was reminiscing on my first (anonymous) WP edit, about 18 months ago, and found that, unknown to me, this user had supported the edit - not a good recommendation! A few administrators got to work on the edit instantly, and the Chosen one engaged them in a firefight for an hour after I'd logged off. Anyway, thanks again, and for your work on WP.--Shtove 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User KazakhPol again

He now seems to be trying to change Wikipedia guides to suite his "call everyone terrorist" agenda, see: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid Aaliyah Stevens 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Baby seal

Just to let you know, due to unforseen logistical difficulties, including what I can only describe as a redonkulous level of security at the New England Aquarium, I have been unable to carry out my earlier threat of clubbing a baby seal to death while repeatedly and loudly cursing your screen name.[2] No doubt you consider this far out of character for me, but I have decided to try a different tack. In exchange for toning down you rhetorical dragging-my-name-though-the-sludge everytime we have a disagreement, I will, next time my cat has a litter, gladly Fed-ex you one (1) kitten. And if you are extra nice, I may even poke air holes in the box. Whadaya say? -- Kendrick7^talk 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther content rich info box

Are we back to an "old" info box for a reason? This was discussed (argued) at length on the article's talk page. Only one user spoke up there as not wanting it, and it was not you ... I'm so confused. Thanks for your reply. Keesiewonder 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks a lot better to me this way. I wish the picture could be larger. Thank you Slim. Anyway to make the picture larger in a picture box like this? Justas Jonas 01:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This may have been an unintentional edit on Slim's part, Justas. I believe she's focused on textual content (and that, before your several edits this evening) and very well may have completely missed the fact that the larger infobox has its merits. I am focused on some standard content in the info box, per nearly all other FA articles on WP. You were in the ultra minority on this when it was discussed on the talk page. And Slim did not participate in that. So ... this may not be as done a deal as you implying. Keesiewonder ^talk 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks stupid, but I can live with it. Just make the picture larger. That's the whole point anyway, not to toss a whole lot of information into it that is easily available in the article. Plus, Slim is right, it creates a mess with useless whitespace because it is so long. Why are you being so silly in insisting it must be as long as *you* want it? Slim's edits were great. Looks so much better. Justas Jonas 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism

Hi, just curious to get your take on re-merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism, but under the title of Anti-Judaism. The issue is being discussed on Talk:Religious antisemitism currently. Thanks, Mackan79 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omura Arb

Hello; please note that I was careful not to include personal details. I prepared this version especially. Have you deleted what I posted? OK, I will prepare an even blanker version and repost.Richardmalter 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello; yes, I do want to publish this - but only because it contains Dr Omura's statements about the current WP version specifically and the WP:OR defamatory suggestions made about him in it and his specific comments about them - which I want to have published so that these current and future editors can refer to them. I do not want to make Ghenigiz Rat's details public (ie this is not my aim). (I do not expect the current two parties to take much notice, it is quite clear to me and anyone that looks twice at it that they want to defame him deliberately). I will email you a version to see if you approve that it maintains GhengizRat's privacy. I have already emailed the original statement with full details about GhenigizRat's real life activities and 'disagreements' - to put it very mildly, with Dr Omura to ArbCom. But also, I still want to publish the blanked out sections because how else are others in the Arb process able to assess matters.Richardmalter 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you a version for your approval. It certainly has gone too far - with real world harm being done - personal and professional!! I hope that is really clear. I cannot comprehend how the WP is going along with this.

I have sent you another version by email.Richardmalter 21:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Archive?

Where do I find the archives for this talk page? --Seejyb 11:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I feel I have behaved very immaturely towards you. This has been through no fault on your part, but due to my own personal obsessions. I got very upset that the synthesis policy was not understood, and that people actually convinced me that I was wrong, when in fact I fully supported your interpretation. My current experience on wikipedia has been 99% pleasant, and the only frustration is that many editors have not understood the policy, but this of course is not your fault. I really hope you will accept my apology! --Merzul 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you accepted my apology. And don't worry, this incident has not made Wikipedia any less addictive ;) --Merzul 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship...

I am going to e-mail you. I'm just working out my clever plan how best to go about things... Marskell 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aminz

Please be informed that a request for comments has been started. Beit Or 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who's right is it ?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/816091.html Zeq 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA, and your thoughtful comments. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PAelegy.jpg...

...which you uploaded, has been tagged as replaceable. Thank you. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

May I email you? I'd like to ask for your opinion about something. Thanks, Jakew 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC discussion that might interest you

You might want to weigh in on this discussion. I did quote you when I began the discussion. Jeffpw 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Zionism

Please intervene here. User:Abenyosef continues to defy consensus, and to revert the article. I believe he is in violation of 3rr. Thanks.--Meshulam 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I've reverted him. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blocked & protected

Re: [3], I'm not exactly convinced. The edit 2 minutes before was to remove an "old" barnstar from Ptmccain and the previous edits, done a couple weeks prior, were to the ML article. But, I see that the Ptmccain user page is now protected. I have all related usernames and user articles in my watchlist and will speak up if and when I think something's happening again. Keesiewonder ^talk 23:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omura

Hello, I am officially asking you as an Admin in line with BLP to remove content from the Omura article immediately viz Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion .

The article clearly violates:

No original research

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately

The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

Richardmalter 08:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response. This section needs removing: [4]. The reason is that it is WP:OR to strongly suggest that Dr Omura has dishnoestly affiliated himself to Columbia University, using honest mistakes in other websites that attribute that he is 'of' or 'from' Columbiua University (which is the problem with the idea of third-party reporting BTW). Dr Omura has stated clearly that this is an absolutely false suggestion that has no basis in fact. See Concerning the article’s claim that I have implied that I am affiliated with Columbia University: that is absolutely false. here [5]; furthermore it is deliberately intended by GhengizRat to be malicious by using WP as a tool to defame Dr Omura and make it difficult for Dr Omura to continue with his Symposiums at Columbia University as a simple renter of space (you have read the statement about GhengizRat and his real world malicious actions). Moreover, this statement has already done and continues this minute to do real life harm to a living person confirmed as fact by Dr Omura in his statement when he relates the response of Columbia University to this passage remaining public which Columbia University also knows to be falseby This WP:OR is malicious, deliberate attempt by GhengizRat to construe an argument based on patched together citations that do not actually say what the paragraph strongly and deliberately suggests.

Next instance for immediate deletion: re Use of categories : Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. WP:BLP. This is especially the case when it is intentionally malicious.

Omura is the creator of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), a form of applied kinesiology[2] which has been characterized as pseudoscience,.

First this has already been discussed months ago in Mediation with Aguerriero as the Mediator, who I think was also an Admin. It was agreed in full consensus [6] Discussion closed and action taken as agreed. that this citation cannot be used as it is here (even though Crum375 and GhengizRat have edit warred to keep this up). In the second round of Mediation with Che it was agreed again by full consensus. (You also stated yourself many months ago that this is saying loud and clear "that you dont rate it" to these editors who put it up originally.) The citation does not discuss the BDORT directly which is why GhengizRat has had to label the citation note [7] en passant. Most importantly, it is a malicious and deliberate attempt at labelling and catagorizing Dr Omura's work. The Catagories section [8] catagorizing of Dr Omura's work as 'Pseudoscience' is also based (solely) on this agreed inproper use of citation. Furthermore, Dr Omura has stated that:

Also, using a reference, [the WP editor] claimed that BDORT is pseudoscience and quackery. However, the quotation [the WP editor] is referencing is from an advertisement from a company that makes a metal bracelet which they claim was found to be beneficial using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test developed by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura. [the WP editor] uses this reference to make the BDORT appear to be pseudoscience and quackery. However, in many of my lectures, I not only discuss the side effects of wearing such metals but I also describe briefly why such metals should not be used by explaining a reason why these metals can be harmful. Therefore, the article’s statement is contrary to the facts. Most of the references the article uses have a similarly misleading or false nature.

and

Anyone who does any real research about the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test can easily see that these statements are made by someone who has never seriously studied BDORT, and that BDORT is not part of Applied Kinesiology. If such a person claims that such statements are based on his own research, including actual experimental data, he should be able to provide published data.

[9]

This means that, in addition, this section is referencing citations that are contrary to the facts and claims stated by the subject of the entry about himself. And Dr Omura is the best source to say what he thinks and claims about himself.

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." ^[1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." ^[2]

Thanks.

I will document more instances soon. Richardmalter 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• SV, I don't know whether you know about the ArbCom case surrounding the Omura article, but it is important to note that the motions passed in the proposed decision will ban Richardmalter from editing the article once the case is closed. While I would like to assume good faith, this request does look rather improper from that standpoint. --Philosophus ^T 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Philosophus. I think it makes sense to let the ArbCom case finish, and then continue working on the article in its own Talk page. Using SV's Talk page for arguments about the issues is inappropriate and I recommend that this thread be moved to Talk:Yoshiaki Omura. We do have a list of issues we plan to address there as soon as the ArbCom case is closed. Despite Richard's assertions about the other editors, we plan to take a hard look at all the BLP issues he raises, as well as others he hasn't, and see if we can further tighten the article to avoid any appearance of WP:NOR or 'synthesis', even if every individual item is well sourced. We also plan to add new sources that have been discovered in the meanwhile. Our goal is to have the article conform 101% to all of the WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and sourcing requirements. I would like to take this opportunity to thank SV for all her help on this article and case so far. Crum375 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (I apologize for spamming your talk page, SV, as I continue to spam) I think this is fine here. It appears that what RM is trying to do is contact an individual administrator to intervene with BLP issues. While I can't understand why he would choose to contact SV out of all the admins here, this is not unusual or improper, except that he isn't mentioning the fact that the material is currently the subject of an ArbCom case, and that the ArbCom is expected to ban him from editing the article shortly. For some reason, I seem to recall him using a very similar tactic before with SV. Am I actually recalling another editor with another case? --Philosophus ^T 14:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is well aware of the Arb case. She has been helping me with a non-harrassment version of Dr Omura's statements. Both of you should realize the WP policies say in cases that I have listed here that defamotory information (that causes real world harm) should be removed immediatetey. Without any assumption of lack of good faith, the reality for both of you is that you arguing that we should not follow WP policies in these cases, makes you effectively complicit in real world harm to a living person; no comment that you can make here changes that fact. Since I trust that neither of you want to help or perpetuate real world harm, I know you will agree immediately. Neither of you have read the whole statement about GhengizRat (whose real identity and real life actions are known and have been reported in detail) submitted to ArbCom which has acknowledged it. You will effectively be aiding a malicious attempt by GhengizRat, that will be your reality, again without any assumption of lack of good faith towards you, and nothing you can say here will stop that except the immediate removal of these passages and others I will document soon.Richardmalter 21:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would encourage you to work on this in the open (SV, would you be so kind as to confirm this?). I do think that parts of the article need reworking and strengthening, and I believe that both Crum and GR acknowledge this as well, but we've been busy because of the case and concerned about editing the article while it was arbitration. I might start editing it today. At the very least, the boilerplate disclaimers are very annoying and could probably be reworked in a more tactful manner. The affiliations section that you take issue also needs work - it seems to be taking a rather specific interpretation of the sources (of which many no longer seem to work), and could certainly be rewritten in a more appropriate manner. The category problem is part of a larger issue with the Pseudoscience category that needs to be resolved at a more general level. However, Dr Omura is certainly not an appropriate source for what he claims publicly, and many of the assertions you make need to be backed up by sources (eg, Columbia being aware of the affiliations section issue). If you could get a public statement from Columbia clarifying the issue, for example, your case would be helped considerably. Also, GR has emailed me his side of the off-wiki story, so it would be nice if you could email me Omura's side of the story. I already know that they are very different even in basic facts like conference attendance. But please continue this discussion on the Omura talk page. --Philosophus ^T 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I will say this just once, and be advised that you may soon be banned and/or blocked from WP if the ArbCase goes where it seems to be going. First, please desist from making accusations about other editors. The statement you just made above about GR constitutes a personal attack of a WP editor. It doesn't matter what you believe the facts to be - WP is all about sourcing rules and neutrality rules etc. - attacking other editors is simply unacceptable and interferes with our mission here to build an encyclopedia. Either the sources are acceptable or not, the NPOV language can be tweaked where required, these should be our focal points - not attacking our fellow editors. Normally I would revert your message here, as it contains an attack, but I am leaving it intact for now, so you understand my points. BTW, as I noted above, as soon as the ArbCom case is done, we do intend to keep improving the article in all its aspects, including the BLP, NPOV and sourcing considerations. Crum375 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philosophus, I've not had a chance to look at the issues Richard raised, but I'll try to do it later this evening, or tomorrow. I corresponded with Richard briefly about a statement from Omura that he wanted to post to the ArbCom page, because his first version contained BLP issues; that's the extent of my recent involvement. I'll perhaps post something to the article talk page once I've had a chance to look at Richard's complaint. The behavioral issues and the editorial ones are separate, as the ArbCom doesn't deal with content issues as a rule, although I've not looked at the case in any detail. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, I understand the personal attack issue and will be more careful. However, the fact that real world harm is being done is a fact confirmed by Dr Omura. You will effectively be, and are in fact already, complict in this even if you do not understand this, dont think this, dont want this, dont intend this, etc etc, if the paragraphs and others I note (that you have edit warred to keep up), remain. This is just the reality of the situation. You can then choose to act as you do, but the real world harm is being done, and this is against WP policies; and WP policies state that such material should be deleted immediately. It is also noted that regardless of the ArbCom outcome you have consistently not kept to full consensus mediated agreements that relates to this real world harm; again, no statement that you can write can change back the real world harm that has been done. This is again your reality and the reality of the situation, regardless of whast your motivations are. Hopefully you will act well immediatetely regarding your responsibility in this case.Richardmalter 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Richardmalter 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, I have not published the detailed sections about GhengizRat's real life actions after discussion with ArbCom and SlimVirgin, for privacy reasons; I cant see any point in sending them to you as you are not a judge. However you can know that there are also an official statement from a witness confirming part of Dr Omura's statement (the other parts where not visibly witnessed due to their nature). But in the instance of Columbia University, I would hope at the very least that you act in a precautionary way and accept that this real world harm is taking place and act accordingly.Richardmalter 02:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thank you for the necessary speedy deletion, which will - please know - have a positive effect on the real world events described. I hope the editors will heed your recommendations re the pseudoscience issue too. I think there are more clear instances that I will request your Admin opinions/actions on; but I will consider these further first.Richardmalter 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, two questions please for clarification:

1) Can Omura's statement on WP be used to state what he says he(Dr Omura) said to Dr Gorringe re the NZ Tribunial issue?

2) If Omura puts his statement on his website, can it then be used? If so in what way further. Thank you.Richardmalter 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] omura again

Can you comment on this please, other Admins have disagreed:

There is a WP policy that says we cannot present 'fringe theories' at all, except in their own article, when they have sufficient verifiable notability. Once such a theory is presented, it must be balanced with other prevailing views according to the 'due weight' requirement, which means that a reader must always understand where the theory stands relative to mainstream view. In this BDORT case, it is in its own article so we can mention it, although it is clearly (IMO anyway) a fringe theory, but we must balance the presentation of any claim against the mainstream views. So if we say, for example: "Omura says that Special Papers soak sunlight and acquire healing properties", we can't just leave it that way, because it would violate the undue weight requirement by presenting Omura's claim unchallenged and without mainstream view of it. If we had some reliable mainstream sources, ideally secondary, that evaluated Special Papers, we could just summarize what they say, but we have none. So, the way we deal with that lack of sourcing is simply noting what Omura says, followed by a comment that we are not aware of any mainstream source that evaluated his claim or supports it. Again, if we left that comment out, we'd be violating undue weight. And that proper neutral balance must be maintained anywhere in the article where we mention such a claim. Thanks, Crum375 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks.Richardmalter 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your edit warring

it would help, given that you can't be bothered reading the acctual justifications for those deletions, if you could just stay out of the dispute. no congent arguments have been brought against them, indeed, as per your other intervention, there has only been prevarication & edit warring. of course, i'm not going to become involved in an edit war with you, your, um, discretionary use of 3r blocks in these areas recently has been, well, highly discretionary :)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible socks

possible socks may act there.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly new to wikipedia. I have noticed you are really active in topics related to anti-semitism. I am in the process of trying to add information relating Nazism to Martin Luther and in particular his influence on the holocaust. I would be grateful if you would come by and comment on the discussion.

For information

- Medieval Sourcebook: Martin Luther (1483-1546): The Jews and Their Lies, excerpts (1543) ,

- Nazi Artifacts,

- Martin Luther's dirty little book: On the Jews and their lies A precursor to Nazism,

- On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther),

Richard Steigmann-Gall The Holy Reich (goes into detail about the views of leading Nazis on the influence of Luther on their program) Talk:Nazism ClassA 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kla'quot 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Antisemitism

Hi Slim, I just wanted to request your participation in finding some suitable resolution on Religious antisemitism. I'm sure you saw many people responded to the RfC, agreeing there's a problem. If you'd offer your thoughts, I think it would really help. Otherwise, I'll simply try again, but if people keep reverting, I don't see anywhere else I can go other than WP:3RR or WP:AN/I. It's such a waste of time, though, not to mention the annoyance, that it really seems we should be able to work it out. Thanks, Mackan79 21:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werdna's RfA

Why did you move Werdna's RfA page? It is true that it is his fourth nomination, but the other's have been under different usernames, and the page, therefore, should not have been moved. What were your reasons for moving the page? Cbrown1023 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Re: Marsden ==

Clayoquot, please don't post any more links to the Rachel Marsden talk page. I see you recently created a page containing nothing but a list of headlines, which I believe Fred deleted, and you've repeatedly tried to add links to the talk page, whether they're used in the article or not. It's starting to look as though you're trying to denigrate the subject. Even if you're not (and I'm not suggesting that you really are), we have to be careful that it doesn't look that way, as Sam Blanning also pointed out to you on the deletion review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference used in the article makes Marsden look really bad. I added my recent comment to suggest how to make her look better. Knowing that whatever I do that has anything to do with Marsden will be interpreted in the worst possible way, I chose to suggest alternatives on the Talk page instead of just doing it. You deleted my comment with the edit summary, "(please decide for yourself which link to replace it with, and then just do it, rather than posting multiple links to talk)". I'm not going to just do it, for the same reason I didn't do it in the first place: it will be interpreted in the worst possible way. And I strongly object to you blanking my comment [10] from Talk:Rachel Marsden. You had no basis in policy to do that. Kla'quot 05:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could change the link yourself if you think it makes her look bad; I don't see how it could be misinterpreted if you replace it with one that doesn't. I just can't see the need to keep posting lists of articles about Marsden to various pages on Wikipedia. I've been editing for over two years, and I don't recall another talk page that keeps having links posted to it, supposedly for the use of other editors, that make the subject of the article look bad. The policy basis for my deletion is BLP. Please take seriously that you look as though you're out to get Rachel Marsden, and appearances matter in this situation as much as reality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not been posting lists of articles about Marsden to various pages on Wikipedia, and BLP does not support what you did. You say that I look as though I'm out to get Rachel Marsden, and I said that everything I do in relation to her is interpreted in the worst possible way: we're saying pretty much the same thing. I'm doing what any normal person would do under these circumstances and not touching the page. The fact that you delete my comment and tell me what to do at the same time doesn't motivate me either. Kla'quot 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned something to Fred that I'll say to you as well: Uncle G asked weeks ago for contributors to collect a lot of good sources and cite them. If this was a bad idea you should have said so before I did the work. We get a) flack from Uncle G if we don't provide sources, b) flack from people who say that only a small group of obsessed young men are interested in the subject, and c) flack when we try to refute (a) and (b) by providing a list of newspaper headlines produced by a robot that demonstrates extensive and nationwide coverage of the subject. I can't win this game and I'm not going to play any longer. Kla'quot 07:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got your latest comment. And I am not "continuing" to post negative information about Marsden; I haven't posted anything about Marsden since the posting that you deleted. Your suggestion about emailing Uncle G is a reasonable one, but if it's so obvious that that's how to handle things then you should have said so on the Talk page long ago. I stand behind my other contributions which include removing the {{stub}} tag from the article so it wouldn't be expanded, and asking an Arbcom clerk to courtesy-blank the Arbcom pages so Google wouldn't pick up all the garbage that was on them. No, I'm not going to take a break. The subject was never as important to me as you think it is and I'm finished with it altogether. Kla'quot 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roe Featured Article Review

Hi, I noticed that you were involved in the initial featured article review for the Roe v. Wade article. That article is now up for review again, and your comments are invited. See here. Ferrylodge 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a smiley for you

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.18 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] One of the finest examples of New anti semitism

http://jta.org/page_print_story.asp?intarticleid=17507&intcategoryid=4 Zeq 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. how come we lost touch ? Zeq 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear fm you. hope to renew contact. Zeq 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New antisemitism

I have added a section regarding some reverts you did in the talk page of New anisemitism. Could you please give some guidance. Nlsanand 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hi again SlimVirgin. I was wondering if you know of any software that Wikipedia may have or may be developing to detect argumentative phrasing and WP words to avoid? I've got into the habit of searching for them using Google and it works ok. And of course just going through categories of articles works pretty well. Any other ideas? AlanBarnet 07:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again SlimVirgin. Just an update. I got a reply from the Village pump on this issue and I believe the most constructive way would be to report any useful search techniqes to the WP:WTA talkpage. [11]. AlanBarnet 11:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omura/help again please

Hello, I am trying to get some fundamental things sorted before I get blocked - if that is what happens.

1) Can Omura's statement on WP be used to state what he says he(Dr Omura) said either about the Tribunial and BDORT involvment and/or to Dr Gorringe re the NZ Tribunial issue? ie can any of these be used:

a) Dr. Gorringe of New Zealand (who called me to help for his defense before a hearing in New Zealand in 2002-2003).

b) I did not [know] Dr. Gorringe and never spoke with him before his first phone call to me.

c) I questioned him about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

d) It immediately became clear that he was using some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.).

e) Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

and/or?

f) Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings.

2) If Omura puts his statement on his website, can it then be used moreso? If so in what way further.

3) Next please. Crum375 has reverted the POV template I put above the article, saying that it is not very non-neutral as a whole. I have said that as a WP editor who strongly disputes the neutrality of the article, I have the right to have this template up, is this correct or am I mistaken?

4) A critical statement from the Tribunial, from exactly the same official NZ Tribunial citation being used for all the others states that:

Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.

Crum375 is arguing that this is "confusing" and so not allowed. Obviously it is important because it makes the Tribunial have a different 'light' on things altogether. It also corresponds with what Omura states in the above quote from his statement. I strongly contest this and see this as clear POV omission, and see no reason to omitt it except POV. Can you help with this please.

Thank you.Richardmalter 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.

Re, Re: 3. The POV template may only be used if you've made suggestions for NPOV improvement that are actionable within our policies, and those suggestions have not been implemented. SV

1) I have made suggestions: this critical quote from the NZ report be included. There is no WP reason on the planet not to. Che, the last Mediator, even in his stub version included it. 2) It is so obviously critical to the whole thing, excluding it cannot really be NPOV. It is the sole quote that Omura mentions himself. Why cant WP readers just get all the rounded info, not selective, and decide for themselves?? Who said WP is not a tabloid? There is no way excluding this is not POV.Richardmalter 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) So having met the requirement of a positive suggestion that can be implemented, and has been by other editors, if Crum disagrees, can I not exercise my right to put the POV template up?Richardmalter 09:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: [12]. Regards.Richardmalter 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

SlimVirgin, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for all your help with the Yoshiaki Omura entry. I also really appreciate all the kind words you said about me, but I want to assure you I would welcome any criticism of any of my positions. They are all very flexible and based on my current understanding, which could well be flawed. I would be more than happy if you or anyone else, after proper scrutiny, corrected me on any of the issues involved. Thanks again, Crum375 11:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I was just trying to edit out my mistake when I hit an edit conflict, and you'd done it for me; thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everwill's unblock

Hello, Slimvirgin. I noticed that on January 27, you unblocked the user Everwill. I just wanted to suggest that in the case that he is unblocked, that the RFCU which FeloniousMonk requested against him be reopened. It was closed as a foregone conclusion, under the assumption that if he was using the same arguments, a Checkuser was unneeded. Being that you have retracted your block of this user for reasons unknown to me, the concerns that originally motivated his RFCU are once more valid, I think. If I am incorrect in any of my assumptions, please let me know on my talk page- I'm not the most experienced user, so my interpretation of what the standard policy in this case would be. --HassourZain 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I'm not sure how it was resolved (I assume by your correspondence with Everwill via e-mail), but I trust your judgement. Thank you, --HassourZain 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin. I was told that User:Everwill was release from his ban if he agreed to not edit either the ID article or its discussion section. Please note Talk:Intelligent_design#Specific_Suggestions. He is back and disruptive. Orangemarlin 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elie Wiesel's honorary knighthood

I noticed your question in the edit summary - his knighthood is honorary because he is not a citizen of a country which has the British queen as a head of state. It's not a second-rate knighthood or anything. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Singer

Hi SlimVirgin - thank you very much for your heads-up on the link I deleted on this article. I've made a note on my own talkboard. -- TinaSparkle 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Please don't revert the RfC entry for Religious Anti-semitism again. It is obvious that there is a disagreement - thus the RfC. The entry serves its purpose, and directs people to the details on the Talk page. You have reverted the entry 3x already today - for sake of the sanity of those of us with the RfC page watchlisted, please just let it go. -- Pastordavid 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA article

There have been a lot of recent changes to the WP:NPA Policy. Thought you might like to take a look to see if the changes make sense. I'd definitely appreciate your input there... Dreadlocke ☥ 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Finally, an administrator with an ounce of sense. Not many of those around at the moment. (I just got warned for accidentally warning myself, go figure...) – Qxz 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay

Slim -

I've raise this request for comment, but I've also tried to re-frame it to be less of a cessppol than normal. I'm editing lightly for a little while, is there any chance you could watch this page and attempt to shepard it somewhere constructive? I'm still of the mind that creating tools to deal with social problems in our biggest downfall right now.

brenneman 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP defamatory statements need immediate deletion/ammendment

Hello SV. Omura article again. Please see: [13] and [14] Richardmalter 09:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Х