User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive39

[edit] Removal of disambiguation

Hey, SlimVirgin. I noticed that you removed some disambiguation text that I added, with an edit summary indicating that you're not certain that it's needed... I'm pretty sure that it is. The WP:V redirect is confusing to being with, because the word "verifiability" isn't mentioned once in the policy (only "verifiable", in section farther down the page).

The notice was on the top of the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, and it helped direct me to Wikipedia:Vandalism once (anecdotal, yes). These are two historically important policies with the same first letter, and I'm pretty sure that the use of the shortcut WP:V will not completely abate. I would truly appreciate it if you told me why you're not sure it's needed. Thanks! --Gracenotes^T § 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawing your attention...

...to this. Do you have any sources to save it? Rockpocket 08:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Axxaer (talk · contribs)

Hi. I've taken a look at Axxaer (talk · contribs) and his/her request for unblock. I'm not at all inclined to completely unblock, based on the incivility both before and afterwards. Nor, am I impressed with his adding "WWJD" to his note to me. (Obviously, since I'm a Christian, saying WWJD can get me to unblock anyone ... whatever.) I would suggest, though, that if there are no pressing reasons not to, reducing the block to a week might and leaving a stern warning against any incivility or vandalism be more appropriate. --BigDT 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spaces before the footnote mark

Hi, SlimVirgin. First of all, thanks for helping me to improve my signature. Secondly, I hesitate to query you on this, because I know you have a lot more experience than I do, but I've been wondering about this. My feeling is that the footnote should come immediately after the punctuation mark (or, if there isn't a punctuation mark, immediately after the last letter of the word), without any space. I admit I can't quote anything to back up my feeling: it's just an instinct. In any case, "immediately after the punctuation" does imply that there's no space. I do feel, however, that an article should be consistent. I come across articles which have a space before Footnote 1, and no space before Footnote 2, and I have to admit it irritates me. I won't revert you, or anything like that, because I'm not really sure, but I'd appreciate further clarification. (And if you feel I should post this at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources instead of here, please feel free to say so.) Regards. ElinorD (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFM Listed you as a Party

dj-ijc has listed you as a party on this RFM. I didn't see any form of notification on your talkpage or his, so I figured I'd let you know. As you are most likely aware, for a RFM to proceed, it requires approval of all parties within 7 days. If you could please voice your opinion sometime within that timeframe, that would be appreciated. Thanks.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing alternative spellings

Why did you remove my edit here [1] shortly after you disagreed with one of my other edits here [2]. Removing a legitimate edit without an edit summery is pretty low and as you are an administrator and should know the rules. What possible reason do you have for removing my edit? Thank you.--Clawed 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clawed, I removed your alternative spelling because there's absolutely no need for it, and because "nationalization" is used in the UK anyway; indeed, it used to be the more common spelling there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Most other articles on wikipedia with alternative spellings and title names have them mentioned in the lead and/or later in the article. If you want to argue this then do it somewhere else like the manual of style and don't use this article to make a point about it.

You removed any mention of the alternative spelling because you think it is not needed but this is only because you do not have knowledge about the spellings based on your second argument; although totally correct; leaves out the fact that in many dialects of English privatisation is the only correct spelling both in the past and present.

Could you please revert your revision since you are clearly in error. Thank you --Clawed 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording

Re: WP:V revert. I believe my wording preserves the exact meaning, but is simpler and shorter. May I suggest using it in those 'other policies and guidelines' if you know where they are, rather than trying to enforce older, but less polished, wording?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user page (design?)

Hi. I just came across your user page, and wanted to let you know that it seems not to be displaying correctly. The right column (Johntex barnstar) overlaps the userboxes, looks a bit weird. Maybe it's my config, I'm using Firefox at 1024x768. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KenLivingstone2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KenLivingstone2.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. ed g2s • talk 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood libel against Jews

Hi, I saw your last edit to blood libel against Jews. As a third party source I can confirm that that is what the book said, but you were still right to remove it as the content violates WP:BLP. KazakhPol 20:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germaine Greer

Hi Slim can I ask why my comments were removed from the GG discussion page?? I'm not saying you were wrong or anything I just think the discussion page on GG is really weak at the moment--SAS87 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Hello Slim. I understand you have worked on this article in the past. I am not asking you to intervene here, only requesting you to at least keep an eye out on this article and the talk page if you have the time. I am concerned that the entire article is gradually being refashioned in order to present Islamophobia as something that has no sort of realistic basis and is only used as a tool to achieve some sort of "goal" or end. --ChefGonzo 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

I noticed you are improving McKeith again, so I just thought I would say hi, and thank you for your kindness, or at least great tolerance for stupidity :), in your correspondence with me. Take care, I'm going to sleep... soon... I hope! --Merzul 03:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you are the one keeping the space between the refs, I will leave it your way if you prefer the British style; but I thought there was a practical word-wrapping issue why the CMS style is preferred on Wikipedia; yet I haven't actually had any wrapping issues; so maybe it has been fixed; but then WP:FOOT still claims this is a problem. --Merzul 19:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] maybe of intrest

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3407real_est_hedges.html - see Larouche at the end. Zeq 07:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] if you read Hebrew

an exccelent interview with [3] in this week haaretz. hope it will be translated. talks about new antisemitism. Zeq 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Goldacre

Please desist from removing references to, and citations of Ben Goldacre. The misapprehensions and errors in your various comments about him have already shown that you have strong and unjustified PoV against him. Andy Mabbett 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. How is this "nonsense"? -- Hoary 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, your blitz of badscience.net removal makes me wonder if you've ever read it. The majority of posts are reposts of his Guardian columns and the whole prescense of no-blogs in BLP is suspect(non-published journalism and comment vs gossip and hear-say). In the James Anderson article it is there as comment, no slander, hear-say or unsourced statements -infact the number of sources in that post beggarsbelief. I am merely suggesting that WP is perhaps throwing the baby out with the bathwater with its attempt to cover its legal posterior. Some food for thought, I hope. Dmanning 08:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." Please keep this in mind before removing a blog reference. Re James Anderson, the statement that shouldve been in the article is that everyone who had to clear the piece ALL thought it was newsworthy. That it is indicative of the state of science journalism in the UK. This is no longer there/never there so I dont really object to the reference going. Dmanning 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to WP:CITE

The section that you removed was discussed [4] and I believe there was support for it. You removed the section {your removal} and I did not find any discussion of removal on the talk page. Could you please explain to me why you made, what appears to be, significant changes without discussion? Thanks. Nephron  T|C 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

Slim, sounds like an interesting idea to merge WP:V and WP:NOR into WP:ATT... however, I can't make head nor tail why we are doing this, and secondly, I can't work out where the general consensus to make that a policy was decided.

Is there going to be a FAQ? I would very much like to be able to make comments on this policy change, as these are core policies we are merging. The bottom line is: I think we need to handle this very carefully. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] welcome

No problem. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm so entertained by this whole conflict that I'm not going to bed for another couple hours! In regards to his talk page, when I was a regular user, I was always told not to revert other peoples talk pages when they archive away your comments. Yeah it's hiding stuff, but whatever, it's their talk. Besides, at this rate, I'll probably be giving him a final warning for incivility in about 30 minutes or so. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh apparently I missed this whole "no longer using test1-4, now using standardized warning templates" thing....what is the new civility warning? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NAS mediation

Hi. I just wondered why you and Jayig do not take part in the mediation on the NAS discussion page? Is there some rule or custom about this that I have missed, or don't you care about it? It will be interesting to see the disputes solved in a reasonable manner. pertn 14:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT

You reverted over my edit to the content of the section on foreign-language sources in order to remove a different edit by Pmanderson. If you have any opinion on the change to the languages section, please let me know. As yet there were no objections and several voices in support of the change on the talk page, but both times I attempted to move these changes to the page itself, they were reverted. Dekimasuが... 15:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intersted in your input

is ynetnews a wp:rs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19_Inayat_Bunglawala .

Tnx. Zeq 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've read against new antisemitism argues that it diminishes real antisemitism yet this point is nowhere in the article. Why is that? If Klug didn't think it was his strongest point why did he conclude on it? I think we should let Klug decide his main point rather than decide we know better what his argument is.

[edit] TNX

Zeq 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Hi SlimVirgin, Thank you so much for your congratulatory message as well as your kind remarks on my RfA. I have long looked at you as my Wiki role model, and I hope that now as an admin I will live up to your expectations. Thanks again, Crum375 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Mongo

Hi! Sorry for not responding as quickly as I would have liked. I just responded on MONGO's talk page and am completely fine with the unblocking. I hope that you'll keep an eye on the dispute, however, to ensure that the discussions between the two users does not escalate further. Thanks gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

I never said I was going to do anything. I stated my response to Basbolls goading poorly but I never threatened him...his have a nice day commment at the end of a typical heated exchange on my talkpage was completely ridiculous, especially since I have told him previously to not bring content disputes to my talk page...Tyrenius and I have a bit of a history as well, his allusion that there isn't is false. His misrepresentations to Jimbo Wales in an email regarding a BLP issue was a slight on me and several other editors. Basboll went to him knowing that Tyrenius and I had a previous dispute. Capricious behavior like that needs to be dealt with. I appreciate the unblock...I was offline all evening so I missed the fireworks!--MONGO 07:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish feminism

Hi SlimVirgin: Good to see your input. Please see the discussion at Talk:Jewish feminism#Does Jewish feminism really exist?. Thanks, IZAK 11:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is O.R. allowed on Talk pages?

I believe not saying explicitly that original research is allowed on Talk pages is causing major trouble in Wikipedia. If you pay a look at the answers to my query on the Attribution Talk page you'll see that many people believe Talk pages are part of the articles.

Many editors are being stopped by other editors from arguing for or against a source based on their own O.R., under the false belief that you can't do original research to decide if a source is reliable or not.

I believe clarifying this point on the Attribution policy page would help, but if not, how do you think we could fix this problem? --Abenyosef 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goy

May I suggest that only protection from anonymous users would be enough? Mukadderat 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock?

Greetings SlimVirgin

I'm turing to you since I can see that you have some experience with User:Zephram Stark. Some time ago, User:ZeframSpark, later identified as a sock, uploaded a post-coloured version of an old photo of Denmark's King Christian X (please see ZeframSpark's upload log). I had an argument with him/her since I'm more than 90% sure that I've seen this colourization before, and that the original image is black-and-white. ZeframSpark's comment on my talk page suggests to me that he claims to have done the colouring in his version of the image. Anyway, this image was later deleted. A few days ago, a new user, User:Peter the Great, also uploads a colourized version of the same picture, using the same file name, and he claims that he is the person behind this version and that I should simply assume such to be the case. I'd forgot all about ZeframSpark's upload, and it is only now that I remember it. Is there any way of checking if ZeframSpark's deleted image is identical to Peter the Great's version or is this impossible? I have no other knowledge about Zephram Stark, but I wonder if we're dealing with a sock. Thoughts? Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children of Men

Thanks for stepping in, as it was getting pretty ugly. However, the editor created a temp page here, which I am not sure violates the spirit of the protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to step in like this, but Viriditas created the temp page before Children of Men was protected, so obviously there could be no "violation." FYI. María: (habla ~ cosas) 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of user talk page content

Hi, SV,

Hate to trouble you, but I note you've given thought to the matter of deleting history/content from user talk pages recently. I've gotten into a bit of a tiff with adim ChrisGriswold who appears, IMHO, to sorely misunderstand some WP standards. He has recently deleted extensive discussion critical of his behaviour from his talk page, moved the entire talk page (under the pretext of archiving), then used admin functions to delete the page, expunging any record of the discussion-- subsequently replacing it with a santised version, sans history. After I pointed out that such an action was misuse of admin privileges, he removed my comments from his talk page, too. He claimed to have the right to delete his talk page based on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#User pages and because "[He has] not been able to find anything against the practice." Could you please take a look at the matter, and let me know your thoughts? Regards, --Leflyman^Talk 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, as always, for the prompt attention -- that was my take on it, too. Question is, what does one do about an admin who's wiped out discussions from his own talk page simply because he didn't like criticism? --Leflyman^Talk 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• The comments were from among others, ONUnicom, Acalamari, myself, and a user who was blocked (and unilaterally "banned") by Chris, as discussed at AN/I late last month. Chris also deleted the talk page of that mischievous user, who went by the apparent pseudonym of Dr. Stephen J. Krune III (talk • contribs • logs). --Leflyman^Talk 08:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

This looks to me like something you would like: http://www.jnewswire.com/article/1691

I can not get into it right now. Zeq 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] digital classicist

I happened to land on this article, Digital Classicist. I'm intrigued by the concept but it needs a lot of work, it reads like an ad for someone's site at the mo. I was wondering if you could help find a way forward for it, or find someone who can.Merkinsmum 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica Massacre

It would have been courteous if you had offered your comments on the issue of links to blogs in the External Links before proceeding to delete the links. The isssue was under discussion on the Discussion page.

The links concerned were helpful in that they provide easy access to ancillary material references not included on the article page and had been used more than once to refute misleading information provided on the discussion page by the individual who called you in aid.

This individual justified his actions on the discussion page by also misrepresenting the content of the Wikipedia page on Reliability of Sources so that the impression was given that the principles set out there specifically applied to External Links. I did not find that confirmed by the wording of the article. External Links are clearly indicated as such, they do not purport to be reliable sources but are simply a short cut to relevant materials of interest available elsewhere.

I don't know whether you sought to inform yourself about the role played by the two blogs in facilitating access to referenced materials used to inform matters of dispute on the discussion page. But you could have used the discussion page to explain your actions and the reasons why you chose to stretch the guidelines set out in Reliability of Sources article, in order to allow us to explain our opposition, even if you went on to overrule that.

I haven't and won't revert your changes because on the one hand reversions only last in one direction at the article and on the other I've been warned as to my conduct. Nevertheless I believe that those of us on the defensive there still deserve to be treated with respect and fairness by visitors. --Opbeith 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (from a user with 21 edits)

I removed that comment from the header. I agree it is extremely relevant, and the user in question seems to be trolling, but putting the edit count in the section header seems petty. Why not just note it in a signed comment as evidence that the user is unlikely to have great experience with WP? I would be glad to sign the comment myself. CMummert · talk 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ger toshav. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] New version of the comma-optional box

I took the liberty of applying this to your page. Enjoy - I've had some positive feedback from others, so I'll be applying the new version across the board in the next little while. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem - explanation provided at the 50k talk page. I think the "comma-optional" method is the best way to go, given that there's a large base of existing users. (If it were a new template, then it would make sense to discuss which one should be the default, but that's not the case unfortunately.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan

I know it was gushy. I am learnin' the youngster on how to properly edit and cite. Your edit was very good by the way. I was telling Happy about how to avoid the NPOV stuff, and aim for brevity. You can look at their talk page to see how I was going about it. Happy doesn't appear to be a vandal at all, just a Reagan-loving youngster (which is kinda terrifying). (S)He is learning pretty fast.Arcayne 06:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scared

I am glad he doesnt scare you. He chased one editor off wikipedia by threatening to lose them their job and the editor left! So it wasnt a personal attack as much as concern. He doesnt scare me either but then he cant get me sacked, SqueakBox 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use it for good?

The champagne or the shotgun that just appeared at the top of my edit interface? They're both terribly dangerous. Marskell 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anjem Choudary

I would love your opinion on a dispute at Anjem Choudary over the use of terrorist. KazakhPol 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message

I knew mentioning Netanyahu name and his involvement in Wiki would get some of you here quickly! How come you saw that post after 10 days but only 5 minutes after mentioning Netanyahu name? Kiumars 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiumars"

SlimVirgin 08:07, 25 February 2007; Can you show me the more recent ones you are talking about please? BTW should you have not notices there is a war going on between the Muslims and Jews and Christians! Bush called it a crusade! Didn’t you see it? Don’t you live in this world? Don’t you read papers or watch TV? What is this “Political Correctness” about? Why it is not applied to other issues? Go to any Turkish/Armenian, Japanese/Chinese, etc article and see what is going on! But mentioning a word about Israel gets everybody’s attention here! Why? Wiki is supposed to reflect the realities but it is wrapping anything that has anything to do with Israel in dark paper and treats as taboo! Kiumars 15:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiumars"

[edit] My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA and BLP concerns

I've replied in the question/answer section of my RFA a bit more, but I wanted to follow up here to your comment in your oppose.

I think you're misinterpreting my position on BLP. BLP is not optional. Enforcing BLP is necessary. That said, that enforcement has to keep AGF and CIVIL and the like in mind. We can't let BLP become a shoot-on-sight order, with any dissenters stomped. If someone has a legitimate "but it's not a BLP violation" argument that needs to be listened to appropriately. If there's a claim that material is properly sourced somewhere else in WP, then that should be followed up on.

This particular case with Doc and Jay is unfortunate as an example to be using. In my opinion... Doc started the BLP stuff and I have issues with precisely how (but not that he did it). He didn't start the confrontationalism in the responses, Jay did. If Jay had AGF'ed it would have been fixed nonconfrontationally. If Doc had passed the baton someone else might have followed up Jay's comments about sources on linked pages and defused it that way, or convinced Jay to do that. It took the two of them to tango into the eventual mess. I can't blame Jay for being upset, but he then responded uncivilly and lost his assumption of Doc's good faith, and Doc responded. Two wrongs obviously don't make a right.

The user conduct stuff doesn't trump BLP. But we can't ignore it. Georgewilliamherbert 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed with Joseph Carlebach article.

Hi SlimVirgin: Please see User talk:IZAK#Joseph Carlebach about the Rabbi Dr. Joseph Carlebach article where I have been contacted by a researcher from the German Wiki with lots of genuine and historical material about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Carlebach, the last Chief Rabbi of Hamburg Altona who was killed by the Nazis with his flock during the Holocaust. Rabbi Joseph Carlebach was probably one of the top rabbis in Germany prior to the Holocaust and was held in high regard by famous rabbinical peers in Europe. Developing this article would be a great thing. Please help. Thank you. IZAK 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to message on User talk:ArglebargleIV

Okay, I understand, and I won't be leaving a impersonal template to a established editor calling the page move vandalism again.

I think, however, my edit summaries -- like this (describing addition of necrophilia charge to AFA article as vandalism) or this (describing oddball page move as vandalism) -- were acceptable, was there a problem with that?

I'm curious, though -- what would you consider an appropriate note to leave for this odd renaming that User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg did, or should it just be reverted and left uncommented upon? I'm not trying to be snotty, just learning and genuinely curious about proper procedure. Thank you. -- ArglebargleIV 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SLIMVIRGIN, Can you adopt me or help me Please!

Hi SLIMVIRGIN, my name is KALMANI & I need your help. Since I'm fairly new to wikipedia, & since you know the rules & proper way to do things - Would you be willing to help me please & mentor me if you can? I would be very grateful. For instance, there's this one wiki about Chaldeans & it's biased & everytime I try to correct it the user who put the bias info reverts it to his edits & trys to ban me for telling the truth & lies about me. He reports me to his mod friends & tries to get me banned which he did on one occasion here (talk) besides your ban only which was understandable. Thanx by the way. You can see the battle here [5] on the bottom headline Chaldeans are not Assyrians. But the point I'm trying to get across is what is the proper way of doing it & what can I do, Can you help me please? Let me know & I would be in debt to you. Thank you for your time! Many Thanx.--KALMANI (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Stated reason for banning me is my bogus WP:COI

This should be reflect in the policies and guidelines. Two arbcom members have stated this as a reason

• User_talk:Andries#Re:_Banning_policy
• User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba_arbcom_case_2:_banning_of_Andries_for_one_year

Andries 23:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Stated reasons for proposed ban, is at findings of fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, and findings of fact include the statement that I edited the article, Sathya Sai Baba, the article that I was banned from "generally responsible", so of course I started asking why I was banned. Kirill and James wrote that this was to a great extent for my bogus COI. Andries 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not been banned yet, Andries. But I would argue that disruption at WP:BAN and WP:COI is not going to help you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not repeatedly revert there. I deny that I engage in disruption. I only think that readers of the polices and guidelines should be aware of the the decisions of the arbcom in such cases. There should be no discrepancy between the arbcom decisions and the policies and guidelines, though I understand that the polcies and guidelines cannot reflect each exception and decision. Andries 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homey

Chick, please don't wheel war over this issue. It's being discussed elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly did not wheel war. It was a redirect to a deleted page; whatever is done with the page, it certainly shouldn't be that, nor would I consider my deletion of it to be a reversal of earlier admin actions. Chick Bowen 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

An admin recently undeleted it after discussion with Jimbo. You deleted it again without discussing it with the admin. Or am I missing something? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Having examined the logs, I realize that I made a mistake, although once again it was never my intention to wheel-war. I thought that the underlying revisions had been moved to the target and deleted there, and that I was merely deleting a redirect. It was not my intention to delete the underlying revisions, and I've restored them. I still don't like it as it is, but I don't really care--I came upon this by going through broken redirects, not because I have any involvement or interest in this particular case. Chick Bowen 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A fucking "J"

Hi. I noticed your requests to User:Kiumars about Jews and I cannot help but wonder if this is somehow related. Please tell me what you think and what you recommend. There is quite a conflict going on there and he has been very uncivil & has threatened me. Now I am accused of being a fucking "J". I don't know if it is useful to ask him to be civil again. The Behnam 01:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holford

I was concerned that the page had been protected with a slightly bizzare reference to sockpuppets and that no response was forthcoming when a rationale for protection was asked for. I appluad the intervention as the content had gotten biased against Holford but I didn't see any conflict of interest in my unprotection; there were a number of suggstions for constructive edits on the talk page.

The policy contradicts itself on this one, so I've always felt that unless there's an obvious conflict of interest it's fine to unprotect/protect a page your involved in (and it's somethign I've done many times, with no complaints from others involved on the pages); please instruct me if I've understood this incorrectly. --Robdurbar 09:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramadan riots

You may want to take a look at Ramadan riots - violates a lot of policies on word usage. Notice it refers to "Islamic jihad terrorism." KazakhPol 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt

When the current mess settles out, you might reconsider whether we still need User:SlimVirgin/Brandt. (At this timestamp, current mess = 1 DRV + 1 ArbComm case.) GRBerry 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stillwater Area High School

RfC doesn't seem to work any more (and anyway, thre's no category into which schools obviously fit); I've tried to attract other eyes to this article by posting both at RfC and at the relevant WikiProject, but so far without success, so I'm reduced to pestering individual editors. Could you have a look at this, and say what you think? An editor is insisting on adding large quantities of school-yearbook-style coverage of the school's sports teams. A third pair of eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More User:Kiumars

Kiumars is back. See User talk:Kiumars#Your posts. You may need to add block to ban or something like that. The Behnam 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it was already taken care of. The Behnam 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted the latest edits and protected the Talk page. Crum375 23:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ilena subpage

Although it makes Ilena look bad, a scratch-pad for gathering information toward an editor violating WP:COI seems to be allowable. I really don't think you should have deleted it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there are several issues here, one where Ilena may feel rushed by events stressing her editing and an apparent unstated COI overflowing from real life has actually been involved now for several months, criticizing her editing here at Wikipedia. I am the party responsible for developing the evidence and the analysis of the COI situation, I had related emails to a senior admin and a AN volunteer before the weekend and got my first reply today. Dealing with the combined real life and wiki parts of the COI are more complicated than anything I've seen in 15+ months, and I have had some hot subjects to deal with. I will respectfully request that you temporarily unblock Ilena and/or email me.--I'clast 03:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer here rather than spreading things out. I don't know the background or who all the other editors are. All I can see is that Ilena edits very aggressively about issues she's involved in in real life; she tries to out other editors; she constantly assumes bad faith; she violates BLP, one of our most important and most strictly enforced policies, and to make things worse, violates it in relation to people she's been involved in real-life litigation with; she edits poorly in general; she seems not to understand the content policies; and she's rude to other editors. As if to add icing to the cake, she today created an attack page in an effort to out another editor even as the ArbCom was voting to ban her. That's it, I'm afraid, regardless of any other issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena doesn't always assume many things, she's experienced a lot of it here including BLP problems. WP should want to see the RfArb part wrapped up without prejudical distractions, I have a specific proposal written to address these concerns. I have been looking at the mechanics of the situation awhile, and I can see some remaining problems. I would appreciate your careful consideration, things are not exactly what they seem especially around the COI, and I plan to address *her* basic problem directly. Temporarily is just that, I think the RfArb should go to conclusion without prejudical action because it also affects other editors as well. We have tremendous polarization problems right now, and I am sure the RfArb can help, but this incident may stymie, limit or cloud some part of that forum & rebuilding desparately needed trust & AGF, which is important to resolve and to come to an unfettered, less unblemished consensus. I am sure Ilena is going to "hang", please don't jump the gun, other long term system issues may be more important. Even at funerals, style seems important to the community.--I'clast 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget COI for a moment. She tried to out another editor. That's harassment, and it's blockworthy. Given she was already warned, it's indefblockworthy. You seem to be arguing that, because there may have been bad behavior elsewhere, her bad behavior is okay, but it isn't. People are very tired of her, including several good editors whose work I respect and whose opinions I trust. You asked me to e-mail you, by the way, and I have. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Just popping in to fully support this indefblock. "Outing" is indefblockable, regardless of whatever else was going on - and face it, there was a lot else going on. Ilena has shown no interest in learning about Wikipeida at all - her whole attitude has been "I am here on a mission and anyone who tries to get me to be polite or follow policy is the ENEMY and I will insult and be nasty to them!!!" IMO there has always been almost zero chance she would become a positive contributor, and now she has simplified things for us by yet again ignoring a rule she was warned about - basically pissing in our faces. I'm all done with trying to help her. She doesn't want to be helped. She wants to crusade. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Support indefblock as well, not necessarily for COI, but for disruptive behavior such as the attack page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Support the indefblock too. I only had minor contact with her on Clayton College but left when things got too testy. --Crohnie 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure that User:HealthZealot is in fact Ilena? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks re: Daniel J. Barrett

Thanks for removing that from Talk. I'm really tired of cleaning up after her, and the attacks that result when I try to do so. --Ronz 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Hi! I was wondering if you could explain your revert of my edit to the Wikipedia article. Thanks! Alsandair 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

The intelligent design opening discussion has moved to the talk page, so it's probably safe to unprotect. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at this and I really feel full protection was unnecessary - especially given the edit war seems to be one user vs. others. Surely that user would be close to a 3RR violation, in which case a short(ish) block is fair more preferable than preventing all users from editing the page? I'm not going to unprotect but would appreciate your review of this. Thanks SV :) Glen 10:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Experience has taught that this page generally needs to be kept in semi-protect. It's a subject that draws a lot of quick angry shots without being able to make effectively the arguments for most of the changes on the talk page. ... Kenosis 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - oh, and thanks for the tag info too (it did look just like the {{sprotect2}} tag, I should've looked more closely! :) Glen 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This diff.

I was looking through the history and recent edit warring on some of the guidelines and I found this diff. Here, you apparently deleted an entire part of a guideline without any discussion on the talk page that I can find. I wouldn't think you would do this; I must be missing some discussion on the talkpage; archived, maybe? From what I can tell this section is very old; why did you unilaterally delete it without discussion or consensus? Or did I not see the discussion?

If you did do it without creating consensus first, why? I can see the point of trying to make WP:RS coincide with WP:ATT, but in this case that makes little sense: WP:ATT is a brand new merger of policies, while WP:RS is as old as Wikipedia itself. I would think that at least some discussion, preferably between more parties than just the few who are edit-warring on those articles, would be warranted. Most of the discussion on the talk page seems to be between just a couple people, which is ridiculous considering its on the talk page of one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia. It would be nice to get a bit more of the debate out into the open, rather than restricting it to a seemingly useless one-on-one debate. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I just looked back at a few more diffs and saw your point. You seem to believe that WP:RS contradicts policy, but I don't see much discussion on this issue. You also seem to be the only one pushing this idea, which suggests that either nobody else agrees with you (unlikely) or that you haven't brought others' attention to WP:RS (makes more sense). Have you considered posting a reference to this page on RfC or the Village Pump? It seems very inappropriate for guidelines and policies to be changed by such a small number of people. Then nobody can possibly claim a "consensus" as there isn't even enough people to form any sort of quorum. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NYScholar

If you're still pursuing action w/r/t this user, please let me know. I wouldn't mind chiming in on your side. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IngridNewkirk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IngridNewkirk.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. Lhademmor 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Screw the above. I've contacted PETA and received confirmation that the image is PD. In fact, all PETA images are PD, so you could change all your other uploaded PETA-images too :-) --Lhademmor 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about WP:ATT

Hey SlimVirgin. Could you please check out the discussion here and here and let me know what you think? The dispute is about the following sentence in the Vakıflı article: "Vakıflı is the only village in the world that is completely Armenian in ethnicity outside of the Caucasus." Raffi came to this conclusion based on what I believe is original research, and is citing WP:ATT to say that "shows that some things just are known, and do not need attribution." I disagree wih him, and I was wondering if you could clarify if this is what the policy is supposed to mean. Thanks, Khoikhoi 10:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no see!

Hi! Thought you may be interested in this spam removal technique, and {{SpamD}}. Is there a user group or page that should discuss this and maybe spread the word if they like it? Best regards! // FrankB 11:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for intervention as thrid party on Terrorism in Kazakhstan

User KazakhPol has created and littered the whole article with misleading references, or at times false references to push his POV. The fact that there hasn't been a single terrorist bomb go off in Kazakhstan's history is itself evidence of how out of proportion this whole article is, how the articles name using the words "terrorism in" (vs and) when there has been no terrorism "in" the country, not to mention his ad-hoc labelling and references to many groups as terrorists in the narrative voice violating WP:WTA. I have tried advising him, but he just keeps reverting, and doesn't even allow the disputed tag to stay up! Aaliyah Stevens 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking sockpuppet

Hello Slim Virgin, would you kindly just indef block Jstandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who's an abusive wikistalking sockpuppet? Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) (→Netscott) 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Next, 209.217.64.30 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) given the pattern of behavior and reference to Aylmer this is undoubtedly User:Bbarnett who engaged in an identical sort of IP hopping sockpuppetry on Muhammad. (→Netscott) 19:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. For further details on the IP sockpuppetry and User:Bbarnett see this 3RR report. Cheers. (→Netscott) 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt this is our friend. Here he is again: 74.101.161.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I'll contact the blocking admin. If this keeps up I'll probably seek a community patience ban. (→Netscott) 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

There are a couple questions for you here. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What's up here? [6] -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALM scientist persists

SlimVirgin, as you'd warned ALM scientist just the other day on WP:ANI/3RR re edit warring, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Same subpage, same issue. He's been warned many, many times, but has persisted, to the aggravation of all.Proabivouac 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internodeuser/Zordrac

I have looked through the block logs and I don't see any justification for an indefinite ban, can you bring me up to date? Also, where is the attack in User:Zordrac/Poetlister? Ashibaka (tock) 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT

I'm sure that this shortcut is being used, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be listed on the page (which wastes space). Shortcuts serve two purposes:
1. When someone isn't sure of a page's location, he she might try typing "WP:" followed by a logical abbreviation or term associated with the relevant concept.
2. When someone sees a shortcut on a page, he/she learns of an easier means of returning/linking in the future.
The first goal requires that all of the obvious shortcuts be created. The second goal, however, merely requires that the most convenient shortcut(s) be displayed. If a person tries typing one of the others, it still works, but someone viewing the list already has found the page. WP:ATT is a likely guess (so it definitely should exist), but it's clearly less convenient and memorable than WP:A is. There's no need to bloat the policy banner. —David Levy 03:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks

Hello. In this edit [7] you indicated that you will block me for repeated and predictatble personal attacks? Which of my edits did you consider to be personal attacks? Thanks ابو علي 10:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Feldman Barrett secondary sources

I have added some secondary source info to Talk:Lisa_Feldman_Barrett. Thanks for your help and wiki advice. Djbwiki 13:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I just followed up again on Talk:Lisa_Feldman_Barrett about citations. Djbwiki 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted my final comment on Talk:Lisa_Feldman_Barrett. If you read the entire "Secondary sources" section (especially my correction of the "131" number, yielding hundreds of verifiable third-party citations), and you still think this isn't a notable person based on WP:PROF criterion #4, then I give up. Djbwiki 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Healthzealot and WP:RFCU

Hi Slimvirgin,

I saw your comment on Fyslee's talk page that a checkuser had been run on whether Healthzealot was a sock of Ilena, but when I checked WP:RFCU or its archives I could not find the info. Can you point me in the right direction? Cheers Lethaniol 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See my comments in response to lack of good faith

at my talk page. Thanks. Tiamut 18:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation

This edit that you made, and marked "minor", changes the context of my remarks to misrepresent what I said. This poisons the discussion and poisons any future discussion with you, since it makes assuming good faith more difficult. Such edits are clearly in violation of WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable and might reasonably be considered vandalism. Did you make this edit accidentally or deliberately? —Ashley Y 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you interested in discussing this? —Ashley Y 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What gives?

No doubt this [8] will be cited as a diff, the next time a reason is found for me to be cited for a violation of some kind. Thanks for the warning and for considering me to be so special as to warrant extra disciplinary action, attention, and follow-up - with personalized notes left for me on the talk pages of other people [9] right after I’ve posted there. And just after your controversial block of me too[10]! I also appreciated how you went digging about for a diff that proves I did something wrong and produce this, [11] as evidence of my having lied in the 3RR. I think I explained myself well there in response to you. And honestly, too. What’s up SlimVirgin? Wikistalking and harassment is not the way to respond to decisions you do not agree with. Can’t you just accept that I blocked you? Oh I'm sorry, it was the other way around. My mistake. (sarcasm, please forgive.) So can I ask what the h-ll you are doing following me around? Thanks, Tiamut 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this "mediation" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19_Inayat_Bunglawala#Mediator_User:Twas_Now

or is it lack of simple policy such as wp:rs ?

tnx, Zeq 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New joke

As amusing as I found your edits to my user and talkpages, the joke gets old surprisingly quickly, so please refrain from posting anything to my talkpage that involves a. How I have a secret agenda to label all "Islamic" people (perhaps you mean Muslims?) terrorists or b. How the Kazakh government funds my devious agenda. The usual incivility is fine, just dont post it to my userpage. KazakhPol 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your involvement in my unblock request

Read your comment in the 3RR talk page. I want to comment regarding your statement that: "But in this case, it was the same edit made by the same editor, and he almost certainly did realize that he'd already inserted this into the article, and that it had been rejected."

It was not the same edit. I've explained this countless times. Please look over my talk page and review my explanation for why my January edit and my recent edit were not the same edit. There was a progression of edits and compromises in my recent edit that were not present in my January edit. That is why my January version was rejected whereas my recent edit was accepted by the same editors.

Any response on this point from you would be appreciated.melonbarmonster 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about block of "Holford's agent"

Hi, SlimVirgin. As you may see, I have posted at Talk:Patrick Holford, to explain why I didn't think the section about Goldacre's claim that his agent edited his article should be included. (Then I got bold and took it out!) Anyway, in my post, I had four points, and I previewed the page, added more, modified, previewed again, and finally decided that my fourth point might lead to the kind of passionate discussion that we've seen at the Gillian McKeith talk page, so I deleted it, and I'm posting it here instead — hope you don't mind!

1. This point isn't really relevant to the article, but I really don't see how this led to this. The edits weren't vandalism, and unless there's something in the history of some deleted edits that I can't see, an indefinite block, based on four non-vandalism edits and on what Goldacre said in his article seems very strange. WP:BLP says, "If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced criticism. If it does, delete that portion." That seems at variance with this, and the section on the meatpuppet policy which the admin referred to talks about new accounts created for the purpose of influencing a vote or a discussion. I don't see any justification for blocking someone indefinitely for making a small number of edits in an area where he may be related to the subject, rather than asking him, and explaining WP:NPOV and WP:COI to him. I thought meatpuppetry would be if I aksed all my friends to join Wikipedia so that they could revert to my version and vote for what I voted for, and I'd think it reasonable to block such users. But if I'm really Patrick Holford, or his agent, or if Goldacre says I am, I don't think that's meatpuppetry, and I think that the BLP policy indicates that such users should be treated sensitively.

Please don't think I'm coming to you with a request to unblock that user. I imagine that a user who is blocked after four edits would not be logging on every day to see if he has been unblocked two months later, and his e-mail is not enabled. I know you're very experienced, and I'd just like to know, really, am I wrong in seeing a contradiction between the the BLP policy and the blocking admin's interpretation of meatpupptetry. The blocking admin seems to have partly relied on a blog as justification for the block, and some recent blogs are now relying on the block log for their posts, and are and laughing at the story of Holford's PR agent being banned, and we're reporting the incident in the article. (Well, we were. I've taken it out, but someone else will probably be along to put it back in.) I can't give you a source, because I didn't take a note of it at the time, but I have seen websites/blogs making fun of Holford over this incident, and the incident seems very unsourced, and there are a lot of people who keep linking to blogs in articles about nutritionists anyway. Should I raise this somewhere else? Perhaps on the talk page of WP:BLP or of WP:BLOCK or of WP:SOCK? I think I was right not to bring that point to the Holford talk page, because I didn't want to see a repeat of some of the furious discussion on McKeith. I know you're not the blocking admin, but I'm raising it with you because you were very helpful in the McKeith article, and I see you're now editing the Holford article, and I'm a bit concerned about the article reporting the incident which led to what I find a rather bizarre block. (I wouldn't question a block of someone who might be an agent if he kept making massive deletions without discussion and had been referred to policies and warned.) So what I'm really asking is should I raise this matter elsewhere? If so, where? Or is there some information that only admins have access to (deleted edits, perhaps?) that would make this block a perfectly proper one, in which case I'd be happy to drop the matter?

By the way, on a related matter, I love this heading! Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hey Slim. I can only check the email account I use for Wikipedia during the week - being a Brit I am now far away from work (hooray!) and so won't be able to check it 'til Monday. If it's very urgent, send it to my gmail acocunt at knowsit at gmail dot com and let me know I need to check it. Proto ► 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

Kudos on the completion of merging RS V and NOR into WP:ATT! I am traveling for few days and with just some time here and there, so I am not able to be of much help... Take care and congrats for a good job well done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your dedication and perseverance in accomplishing what no one though possible: making our core content policies succinct, easy to understand and consistent with each other. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words... What's next? ATT/FAQ? We really need some guidance on how to assess the reliability of sources, don't we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt

Slim, I know what the site is. He has (had?) my mugshot on the hive too. But that's not really something that we should be basing our content decisions on, IMOZocky | picture popups 00:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I split that article off and suggested a merge. I don't really have a strong position on any of this. There is a good case for both sides - media attention for keep, self-reference and all the consequnces of that for delete. Anyway, I got burned and I'm letting it go for the time being. Zocky | picture popups 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

Thank you for thinking of me with regard to Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion. I would like to help. But. We have very different approaches. I like to structure things as a range rather than discrete. Shades of grey versus black/white. Rules of thumb versus bright line distinctions. I would like to help but do you think my input would be helpful given our very different approaches? For example, without reading the existing proposal, my mind turns to ideas of ranges of options: from deletion to redirect to moving data to minimizing (stubbing) to disclaimers. Too many cooks spoil the broth. I'd like to help. I'm concerned that jumping in with all this might not be helpful. But then I've yet to read what exists at Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion. Please talk to me some more so I can get a feel for the situation. For example, I see the relationship of this to Brandt; but I'm unclear as to the wisdom of its timing in that regard. WAS 4.250 06:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll see what I can do to help. WAS 4.250 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems that there is little traction to move forward with this proposal, SM. Should be abandon or persist? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

SV, I agree that there is a clear need for a policy or procedure for dealing with BLP deletion requests by subjects, and we can't just avoid the issue and hope it will go away. I also accept your point about WP itself needing to remain in the role of a passive observer and not an active participant, and that WP should not increase someone's notability, especially if they decline to have an article. Bottom line: I agree and support your effort, and agree in principle to the criteria. We would need to have the community's inputs as to how they think this issue can be resolved. Crum375 17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be self-defeating. Some of the marginally notable don't want to be talked about—but tagging these articles, allowing for DRV, etc. is one sure way to needlessly talk about them. Any procedure we have for this should be quick and quiet.

Here's one thought: if an admin or any other user is contacted for a courtesy deletion, they should contact a 'crat (and/or a member of Arbcomm). Crats and arbcomm could be given full discretion in deleting and re-creating. No new policy page, no new tag, no deletion/review platform. Tack it on to WP:BLP, and if anybody's annoyed remind them Wikipedia is not a democracy.

(p.s. see WT:BLP where WAS and I have suggested renaming the page.) Marskell 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eliot Tokar

No sources cited at Eliot Tokar. Bullying on the talk page, and people who don't know what an encyclopedia entry should look like. Could you possibly help establish even if he is noteworthy etc?Merkinsmum 11:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An ice cream to say thank you

I present this strawberry ice cream to SlimVirgin for her fantastic work in bringing articles into line with the BLP policy, and for her willingness to help new users. ElinorD 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)