User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive41

Talk archives

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

[edit] Request for your wisdom

Hi SV,

[Assuming you don't mind, I am scrubbing my first question.] 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, SV, but you have deleted the alleged "attack page" per [1] when it was not nominated for speedy deletion. renominated them for "speedy deletion". Can you please explain to me (1) what is an "attack" page? (2) why did you perceive these pages as "attack" pages, (3) how did this page fall under the category for "speedy deletion" and (4) is this related at all to my request for advice? Please respond promptly. --Otheus 09:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response to the above query. either of the above two queries. If you are not going to answer the first one, please say so, and I will find someone else who can be objective about that discussion. --Otheus 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC); 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swine Image

Hi SlimVirgin, perhaps I jumped the gun a bit on removing the swine gestation photo. Sorry if I moved a bit fast. There are many modes in which swine is gestated and this photo is certainly be the extreme (even in industrial agriculture). The photo undoubtably paints a negative image of the idea of industrial agriculture (maybe it is difficult ot paint it iin any other light). As you well know, this article is about objectively explianing what industrial ag is and not critisizing it.Perhaps another shot of a nursery or a growing barn might be more objective? What do you think? Can we collaborate on finding another shot?--Agrofe 19:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Monkey:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPA pronunciations

please stop removing them. If you find them difficult to understand, see International Phonetic Alphabet and IPA Chart for English. If you have a problem with the guidelines regarding use of the IPA, discuss it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). --Krsont 00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

*actually stops and looks at what other people are doing for a change* ah.. I see you didn't actually delete the IPA transcription on the page Shih Tzu as you did wth Piri Reis... I apologise for my pointless reversions then. My emotional state. --Krsont 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 172. vandal

Notwithstanding our differences elsewhere, thank you. CJCurrie 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT Synthesis example

Hi there. I see you've reverted my removal of the example of synthesis in WP:ATT again. Please could you respond to my request for you to clarify your objections on the article talk page, which I had left there a couple of days before you reverted, and which you still haven't responded to. Thanks, Enchanter 11:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] e-mail

sent you mail. see this: http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/12/atzmons_triumph.php Zeq 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

well? Zeq 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Cannings

Hi, Slim. I'm glad you removed that speculation from the talk page. I nearly did. I was looking at it doubtfully, wondering shall I?, before adding the BLP box. I eventually decided not to, but I hope you didn't think that my adding a header for a section was an endorsement of what was there. Also, I wasn't quite sure of the correct way to tag a BLP talk page, so I asked a question here. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits to header

I'm not understanding your edits to the header, they are needed to remind of policy. Please clarify. Navou ^banter / _contribs 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets discuss these changes on this talk page. I disagree with your changes and have chosen to revert them, they are bold, but I disagree with them. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Islam and slavery lead ==

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [3] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 05:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for UserTalk archive removal

I recently set up a more efficient numbering system for my archives and, having transferred my data from the old ones to the new, would now like to remove the old archives. The archives in question are named as follows:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2: CoM edits & Learning Curve
• /Archive 2.5: More CoM & Learning Curve
• /Archive 3:More Learning Curve

I remember that I am supposed to ask an admin to remove them for me, and simply deleting them from my Talk Page doesn't actually get rid of them. If I could impose upon you to do this, I would appreciate it, :) -Arcayne 18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

• You may wish to protect the user page as well, let me know if the way I did it was appropriate: DIFF. Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mothers accused of killing babies

Hi, Slim. Thanks for your note about Trupti Patel. It was funny, because I was intending to ask you to take a look at the article, and mercilessly remove anything that might not be in accordance with WP:BLP. (I had slight doubts about using "controversial" for Sir Roy, when we don't use it for a certain scatologically infamous person, but I felt it was important to report that he was someone who had a bit of a reputation for giving evidence that helped to convict women who were later cleared.) I need to expand on the grandmother section later, as it's not clearly stated at the moment that part of the case against Patel and others was that people believed that a second baby dying of natural causes in the same family was automatically suspicious, unless there was some genetic defect. I seem to recall that when Angela Cannings was appealing, new evidence came out that her grandmother had lost children in infancy. That hadn't been known at the time of the original trial.

Anyway, I have two questions. One concerns Donna Anthony, about whom there is currently no article. Although Trupti Patel isn't as famous as Sally Clark or Angela Canning (they were both in jail for years, with husbands and support groups launching appeals, whereas Patel only had media attention between being charged and being acquitted, or shortly after), I did feel she was notable enough for an article. I don't feel that Donna Anthony is equally famous, and yet it's the same kind of case — a woman who reported more than one cot death, was arrested for murder, convicted partly through Sir Roy's evidence, imprisoned, and subsequently cleared. You can read about her here. I think the reason she's not more famous is that she had no husband or family fighting for her (her mother died while she was in prison), so she was just forgotten about, while people were making big noise about Clark and Cannings. Do you think she's notable enough for an article? If you think there should be one, I'll give it a go, but I don't want to clutter up Wikipedia writing biographies of people that nobody has ever heard of.

The other question relates to a suitable category. I feel that there should be some category in Trupti Patel that would also include Clark and Cannings, and Donna Anthony, if I or someone else starts an article about her. Clark and Cannings are both in Category:British wrongfully convicted people, and Donna Anthony would be there as well, but Patel can't be, as she wasn't convicted. I think there should be some category for cases of mothers accused of killing their babies. It would include Lindy Chamberlain, who is in Category:Wrongfully convicted people. While I realise that Wikipedia is not meant to decide that anyone is innocent just because she was acquitted, I really have in mind cases where the mother was clearly innocent, or where a lot of people believed her to be so. I don't have in mind cases like Andrea Yates. But I'm sure there have been many cases of mothers accused of murdering their babies because people didn't believe the explanation they gave for the deaths. I can only think of the four British cases, though, and Lindy Chamberlain. Do you think it would be appropriate to create Category:Mothers accused of killing their babies? How many articles would normally have to be in a category to justify that category's existence? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I've created Donna Anthony, but it still needs a lot of work. I'm fairly happy with Trupti Patel now, except that when I get a bit more time, I'll add something about how she attended a cot death conference, and how she had a baby monitor but brought it back, saying it wasn't working. If you have time, I'd appreciate your thoughts about this question. I know you're very experienced with Wikipedia policy about things like original research and verifiability and synthesis of published sources. I worked out her year of birth based on one reputable source saying that she was 35 at the time of the trial (June 2003) and another reputable source saying that he family moved to Britain in 1965, and she was born two years later. Then I had doubts, because there was no month given, and if the family moved in December, "two years later" could be January 1968. So I took it out.

I've created Category:Mothers wrongfully accused of killing their babies. I think it's better than "falsely accused" (even though I don't have any doubt that the accusations were false), because if someone is guilty, the accusation wouldn't be "false", but it would still be wrong to make an accusation when the evidence is flimsy. I'm not quite happy with the category title, though, because ideally, people like Angela Cannings and Sally Clark would be able to go into that category even if they were still in jail, because there was a lot of public support for them, and many people believed they were innocent, even when they were "legally" guilty. The same applies to Lindy Chamberlain. Something like Category:Controversial accusations of filicide would be more accurate, but sounds horrible. ElinorD (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverting

Slim,

I've read the source, and it doesn't argue that the Netanyahu protest was anti-Semitic. I'm not "changing what the source says"; I'm removing material that isn't directly related to the subject matter. Please stop returning it. CJCurrie 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can we discuss this calmly, please? It's evident that there's a content dispute here; I don't appreciate your efforts to portray my edits as somehow "disruptive". CJCurrie 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your second question, it does appear as though I misread the source document on one particular point. The U of T speaker was referring to events at her own university, and not to Concordia. My apologies. I'll fix the wording post-haste, unless doing so will put me over the 3RR (though I'm fairly certain this would be a self-revert, and hence not be counted).

I will not, however, apologize for removing material about Netanyahu's appearance at Concordia. An anti-Netanyahu protest, even one which involves low-level violence (ie. furniture being smashed), is not an inherently anti-Semitic act. (It may interest you to know that there were a number of Jews involved in the protest, and at other anti-Netanyahu protests in Canada in this same period.)

More to the point, the source document does not claim that the Netanyahu protest was anti-Semitic. Unless you can find a source alleging that it was, then the material has no business being in the article. CJCurrie 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The source article does not argue that the Netanyahu protest was anti-Semitic. It presents the demonstration as an example of hostility toward Israel, but it's by no means clear that this represents is the same thing. CJCurrie 04:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "The point is whether the source includes it as an example of antisemitism, and he clearly does, given that's what his article is about." In fact, the article is about academic boycotts of Israel. CJCurrie 04:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim: I have no problem with the content of your last edit, but I should point out that "Ramsey Cook" is a common misspelling of "Ramsay Cook". CJCurrie 05:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is no "Toronto University" -- it should read University of Toronto. Obviously, I can't make this change myself at the present time. CJCurrie 05:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InShanee dispute

Re your comments on the talk page of the decision, I support you in the strongest possible terms. I'm sure that a lot of other admins will be horrified - and somewhat rattled - if the arbcom goes down the wrong path on this one; I know I will be. Metamagician3000 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missed a page

In deleting the pages listed at the MFD, I think you missed the main one, User:Otheus/sarfati; I've deleted it for you. Feel free to restore it if I am mistaken or out of line. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 03:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Animal testing:

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthyism

Slim, you may remember me from such great articles as Dawson's Field hijackings. Maybe not. In my years at WP I have yet to experience as difficult a situation as I find myself in now, at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Trying to stay as neutral as I can- it is possible that I have just lost my marbles on this one, but OTOH I am in an argument with an editor who is repeatedly nasty and has a history of such with more than a few others. Can you take a look and leave a comment for me on my talk or if you are inclined at the above page? Maybe I just need to take a break, but reviewing the archives pretty much everywhere this guy has been you find a trail of bitterness and frustrated editors (ok, that's again to some degree my subjective opinion, I could be wrong). I am generally unfamiliar with the requirements for User conduct RFC's but I find myself reading up on it a lot in the last week. Any advice, even "take the day off, man" would be welcome. Regards, Kaisershatner 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Header

I have attempted to discuss these with you on Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard/Header and commented on your talk here. It appears we are revert warring, can we discuss this at the talk page of that header. v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] need for some mediation

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

I feel the articles are well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to pick a fight and who constantly makes changes and deletions, even while I am writing and editing. --Metzenberg 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is benefiting from a source of pain to you

At Talk:Daniel Brandt I said "Small attacks that cause defensive measures to be enhanced are protective against larger attacks. Wikipedia Review's gang is a vaccine against billion dollar threats that would subvert us." I wish I had better people skills at moments like this. WAS 4.250 05:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I need your mediation on these articles.

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing sourced materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CEM

It looks like you missed my comments from this post.[5] While I understand the changes you made at the project page are well-intentioned and standard practices at nonbinding mediations, there are specific reasons why they wouldn't be compatible with this process. The proposal already has a different mechanism to handle the scenario you described at the talk page as the reason for your edit. Other people have raised similar scenarios multiple times at the proposal's talk and been satisfied with the existing solution. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your question

It appears to me that you are helping Cberlet and Dking "own" a number of articles, and make them showcases for their theories. I can't see anything in the ArbCom decisions that says that PRA is considered a valid source, and I have asked you to point it out to me, but thus far you have not done so. --HonourableSchoolboy 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Crumbs, you must have done some pretty smart talking to turn Jimbo round like that! (I wish he'd paid attention a bit earlier, though.) I did say yonks ago that the pages should run alongside each other till pre-eminence was achieved through usage (which might take ages). Unfortunately change takes time to sink in, and some people catch up slowly (there's a greengrocer in my town who still labels in pounds, shillings and pence, despite being taken to court over it repeatedly: needless to say, some people think he's a hero).

I hope you don't feel all your work was wasted. For what it's worth, the discussions on the proposal page taught me tons and made me a much better editor. Many thanks. qp10qp 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation completed

See my talk page. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

Scott Adler added several 'alleged's throughout Muhammad al-Durrah. Please revert. KazakhPol 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that al-Durah ever existed. Find his birth certificate, one that wasn't post dated. This is POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scott Adler (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WP:ATT

Please note my comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Strong objection. I've requested you specifically (and two other editors) to acknowledge recognition that I have an objection and that there is a dispute. Thanks in advance for your reply. --Coppertwig 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User Crum375 has said: "And by the way, I am not in 'content dispute' with you - I have not decided even on the merit of your changes - my only point is that a wide consensus is needed prior to making them. Crum375"

This leads me to wonder: Is there anyone at all who is actually against inserting the sentence "Not everything that is attributable is worthy of inclusion"? Also, if you think a broader discussion is needed before making this change, please tell me where I should post notices (or what else I should do) to stimulate this broader discussion. Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Thanks! --Coppertwig 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] excuses

among the excuse used by new antisemite is that "arabs are semites and I don't hate Arabs": [6] Zeq 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silence

I remain a little concerned at the dead silence. As I said in e-mail I'm not trying to tick you off, just to answer your question as forthrightly and completely as possible. Also as I hope you will notice at Wikipedia talk:Attribution I am trying very hard to be a voice of reason today, and not to have a partisan stance about anything, other than I think that the page protections were (good faith but) conflict of interest. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] Éc 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial Agriculture

Hi SV, I added some ideas on March 20th for new content for the Industrial Agriculture article in the talk section. I was hoping to get some feedback. Would you mind taking a look and giving me your initial thoughts on the tone and direction I was going in there? Thanks for any help.--Agrofe 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP edited by the LP

As best as I can tell, the man behind the BLP article Archimedes Plutonium is editing his own article under User:Superdeterminism. Are there any guidelines/policies/restrictions that speak to this? Keesiewonder ^talk 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :Image:Barbarash.jpg

Hi SlimVirgin. Image:Barbarash.jpg is likely to get deleted since it's deemed replacable fair use. I can see you once contacted ALF about freelicensing - did they ever reply or should we try again? --Lhademmor 08:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it: We need ones for Rod Coronado and Robin Webb as well, since they are also copyrighted. I'm sure the ALF should be able to help there? --Lhademmor 08:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perverted-Justice.com

The reversion wars from early 2006 are starting up again, could use your eyes and opinion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perverted-Justice regarding what looks like an upcoming reversion war. My contention is that including criticism from (largely) 2004 while censoring published response is not proper neutrality for an article. A shame too, the article had been peaceful for the last ten months or so after actual neutral Wikipedians rewrote it. XavierVE 08:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Icke

I have read the rules. Please review the following:

Exception: Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)

Please respond to the numerous reasons I've posted on the discussion page why the information you keep reverting to the article is inaccurate. I will repeat them here as you have yet to respond to one of them:

The dubious number of 1000 provided by his own organizers and 'substantial audiences' is not footnoted nor qualified. The idea that this proves he is 'popular in Canada' is absurd. Please quote the line that says his ideas are popular in Canada. A 'substantial audience' does not mean nor imply popularity. Substantial compared to what? The point is not popularity, it's the fact that even such limited numbers can present a significant revenue stream

Please familiarize yourself with our rules regarding attribution. Particularly rule # 1. Interpreting the paragraph to mean that makes him popular in Canada is an opinion and constitutes original thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an editorial. Ghettodev 09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The mailing list

Did the Community discussion page get passed along the mailing list and at IRC? If it's just the same people talking who have already been talking at ATT, we won't be doing much. Marskell 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rasputin vandalism blitz

Nicely done with the sprotect of Grigori Rasputin. User:168.216.113.163 & User:168.216.113.129 seem to be embarking on a little spat of vandalism (see also the Athelia stub &, of all things Jeff Foxworthy). --mordicai. 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Already did so, Jossi agreed to stop reverting, so leaving it on would be punitive rather than preventative. Trolling or not, though, you just can't undo seven edits unfortunately. I hated to do it, believe me, Jossi's a great guy. If you like, since I'm not involved with that page, I can keep an eye on it for disruption, if that's already been a problem from him. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Libby again

Don't know if you care to get involved with this again, but we seem to be running around in circles on the Talk:Lewis Libby page again. I'm concerned that things are starting to get personal as everyone just keeps stating their positions over and over. Could you weigh in, or perhaps get some other non-interested parties to voice their opinions, or at least help us reach a resolution? Thanks. Notmyrealname 04:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muahaha!!!

I have kidnapped your little man & am holding him hostage at my talk page! (This is not an actual ransom note JSYK...) I've always wanted to have a conversation with you (you really are a mentor to us newbies...), but have never gotten around to it. Nothing starts an aquaintence than a little hostage situation... Muahah... :) Thanks, Spawn Man 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, your name is slim virgin after all... ;) See you around... :) Spawn Man 04:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALF Logo

Hello. You seem to be pretty involved in the Animal Liberation Front article, so I thought I would bring to your attention my post on its talk page regarding the ALF logo. Since you uploaded the original ALF logo, I thought your input would be especially valuable. Thanks! MithrandirMageT 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help please

Yourhelp in making this: [7] as NPOV as possible is appriciated. Zeq 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darvon cocktail

I noticed you speedy deleted Darvon cocktail a short time ago for the primary reason that the information was dangerous. I'm not in favor of suicide, but it really feels like censorship to me. Also, the very similar article Suicide method has been nominated for deletion several times and been kept each time, it seems irresponsible in my opinion to delete the article without a discussion. Could you restore it and nominate it for deletion instead? Vicarious 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No include

No problem... that was my only useful wikipedia edit in a long time. I keep getting drawn into this addictive Wikipedia namespace, but there is one thing you might be interested in. I created a very rough essay on what can be learned from Citizendium. I actually think they have some nice ideas, and I'm believe you will like the essay, even if the writing is bad :) --Merzul 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:No original research

Hi, I'd like your opinion re Wikipedia:No original research. Currently, this appears to prohibit citing other wiki pages (wiki is tertiary; sources must be pri/sec). This seems to me to be madness: for example the GW page sez: Global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F) relative to the period 1860–1900, according to the instrumental temperature record. Is that banned, to use ITR as a source? Literal reading of the policy (as some are doing) would appear to say so. It seems mad because if interpreted that way we are forced to endlessly re-cite stuff from sub pages William M. Connolley 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies there... but they appear to be incompatible - see my talk William M. Connolley 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) & again... William M. Connolley 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In a perverse way...

...I'm sort of having fun. Coppertwig has taken me to 3RR here. How maintenance edits count as reverts, I'm not quite sure. Marskell 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not edit pages in my user space

...except my talk page, where I'd be happy to discuss the wording "attributable ... not whether it is true" with you. If you believe you have a justification for editing in my user space, please feel free to discuss that with me. --Coppertwig 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of the above message. --Coppertwig 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A belated apology. I apologize not only for the tone of the above message, but for the message itself. That was a big mistake. I had forgotten that Wikipedia pages are written either by one user or by all users, not by limited groups of users, and had tried to set up a page to be edited by a limited group of users. It was wrong of me to criticize you for editing it. --Coppertwig 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ra'anana

I promised not to touch the Ra'anana page, and I intend to keep to that promise. Yesterday user 68.156.22.2 made extensive editing to the page. Most of the material reads like it has come directly from the marketing department of the municipality. Cymruisrael 11:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

Just a heads up that there is a mindless edit war going on at Muhammad al-Durrah. All are invited to participate! KazakhPol 12:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skyring

Hi, i have noticed that you have had problems with a user known as Skyring in the past. I just wanted to inform you that he seems to be up to his old tricks and i think an administater needs to look into Skyring. A quick look at his edits will indicate that he has contributed nothing of any note to this site and appears to be obsessed with date formats. It would also appear that he has looked at my recent edits and changed them just to be annpying. I don't like having to do this, but after looking at his block log i really don't think he's adding much to the site. Thank youCEP78 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your mistaken edit to Zombietime

The deletion of this unsupported speculative OR based ref is discussed here. link You claimed it wasn't discussed in talk. Wrong. I explained in detail, and at length. Please do not reinsert this multiple WP violating ref. Thanks. - FaAfA Aloha 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swine Image

Hi SV, I noticed that there had been a switching back and forth of the swine image between you an some other users. Did you get a chance to review my comments about the im age you are posting? In never heard back from you on that particular issue.

I don't think your image is representative of Industrial Ag/Factory Farming. I think we should remove it and discuss finding one that is more realistic. What do you think?--Agrofe 12:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zombietime OR

I posted about our difference of opinion regarding OR in Village Pump 'policy'. Is that the best place to post my concerns? If not where is? Thanks. I'm aware of 3 RR. - FaAfA Aloha 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Madrid train bombings

Mucho debato taking place on the talk pagina, on this aricle muy importante. Requero una editora muy experiencia. Regular editores on this pagina driving me loco. Comprende? Gracias.--Mantanmoreland 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Shahak poll

Please vote in the poll for replacing the Praise, Criticism and Accusations sections with a short summary. Your opinion is much valued. Thanks. Itayb 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

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

[edit] Primate article

I did some edits to primate that you undid. I have now left a posting at talk:primate expressing my concerns. Those last 3 sections leave a sour taste in my mouth for the reasons expressed there. --EMS | Talk 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs work

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_exist&diff=118971107&oldid=92963770 Zeq 05:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=3390 Zeq 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] :-)

Told you. lol. When editing templates like that it is best to tack on &action=purge at the end of the URL to really see the changes. (→Netscott) 10:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just takes a bit 'o practice to do that sort of editing... best to use a sandbox, etc. There was a change a month or two ago to allow for better visualization of false names.

• (ie: Jimbo Wales ≠Jimbo WaIes) Å© this is how it appeared before but now it appears like this
• Jimbo Wales ≠ Jimbo WaIes. (→Netscott) 10:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Ape personhood

Hi, I noticed you had made some great copy editing to the above article. I also noticed you removed Noel Edmonds as a proponent. I had previously edited that page and can't believe I let that slip though. If it's not vandalism then it certainly needed a citation. Thanks for picking it up! Pedro |  Talk  10:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not even a month ago...

"For your hard work and good sense on Wikipedia:Attribution, for keeping the faith, and for making it happen." Do you remember writing those words? Right now, they make me weep. Marskell 10:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :Image:StephenRLClark.jpg

Hi SV Can you please provide a source, mail a permission to the WMF or something else about Image:StephenRLClark.jpg so we can move it to Commons without risking it deleted because of lack of documentation? Thanks. --Lhademmor 10:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tsunami Butler

Tsunami Butler is at it again. This time adding defamatory content to John Seigenthaler, Sr.. This guy is just begging to be banned, huh? I left another warning on his user page, but I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to keep an eye on him. Kaldari 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "this has already been copied"

To where? I must've missed that. Coppertwig or someone posted on talk page last night that they hadn't copied it over; didn't see anything since then about it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] Éc 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Ya beat me to it. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] Éc 06:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation call

Did your Skyp call-back to me cost you cash because you initiated the call? Or does Skype charge both parties equally? If needed I can send you some recompense (I think) via PayPal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] Éc 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Holocaust

Hi, the version of the Holocaust lead para which you reverted was the result of discussion among several editors - could you review the summary on Talk:The Holocaust#Lead as I would like to restore the more detailed version. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CITE

Hi, You reverted again[8] something that I had added[9] after discussion-- after getting support on the talk page. Prior to that you reverted[10] and I asked you why[11] [12] because I did not see anything on the WP:CITE talk page... but did not get a reply. Could you explain? I did not find comments on the WP:CITE talk related to the more recent revert. Will you re-insert the section? Thanks. Nephron  T|C 12:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I made a booboo, can you fix it

Hi SlimVirgin, I was meaning to add the sockpuppet tag to one of user:Serafin's sockpuppets and accidentally had copy and pasted the URL so it created User:User:Widelec instead of User:Widelec. I realized this after and blanked the page, I was wondering if you could delete it, since it is such a waste of space and not an article so I didn't think it could go on AfD.

thanks --Jadger 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not

[edit] lol

;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing :D — I was smiling to myself quite a bit after making this change. And in case you were wondering, it's not an April Fool's joke. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universities and Anti-Semitism

Hi. Just a note to say that whilst you and I disagree what defines anti Semite activity, I believe that we are both working to improve the article. It may be that we will never agree if anti Israeli comment equals anti Semitism. I reiterate my realisation that anti Jewish sentiment is often introduced as part of anti Israeli comment, but I still hold that the two are separate matters. I'm not picking an argument (really!) but trying to maintain a position. See you around, doubtless. LessHeard vanU 12:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You were removing material about David Duke and another Holocaust denier, not anti-Israel comments. I left a note for you on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I replied there. LessHeard vanU 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Sure, we already have our conclusion wrt consensus, but that doesn't mean we won't get other useful information if we run the poll longer. If that is indeed your goal, it might even be a good idea to run it indefinitely. --Kim Bruning 01:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 :-D No one's nerves could take it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa. It doesn't matter if it's been running for 5 minutes or 5 centuries, the conclusion from the current absolute numbers is that it's no consensus. As more votes come in, the absolute counts can only get larger, never smaller. This means that the conclusion will remain "no consensus" from this point forward, no matter what. Pretending this isn't true and fooling people into thinking that there's still a chance to influence things seems to be somewhat unfair to me. Please consider reverting yourself in the header section.--Kim Bruning 01:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, the point of the thing was not to get numbers alone, but to look at the comments and arguments. We also want to see how much support ATT has. The header could influence how people decide. Please just let it run without interference, so that we get an idea of what support is out there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(in resp. to my talk apge) Sure, I already agreed to that much. --Kim Bruning 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:StephenRLClark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StephenRLClark.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lhademmor 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATT poll, like I suspected

263-198-56 currently, and picking up speed like I figured come the Monday. Told ya so. :) Right thinking minds will eventually dominate the poll and ATT will be fine in the end. ;) - Denny 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I suspected, due to the lack of choice and in light of the uncertainty, we see plenty of opposition which would otherwise support ATT. El_C 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I gotta scroll sideways with this talk page, again. El_C 16:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming bad faith

Wow. I read SV's post an AN/I, and don't get that at all. It also troubles me that you posted this right after this exchange. I'm not a fan of ATT, but I don't see any ulterior motives except improvement to the project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, indeed... We call that chutzpah... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's somewhat ironic given that you started the thread by attacking another admin, and continued it with attacks on almost everyone who posted, Chris. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say it's disturbing that you don't see anything wrong with Jayjg's actions. He had no support from the rest of the community for what he did, and it was a textbook case of misuse of speedy deletion for POV reasons. As for the rest, see [13] and [14]. I'm sorry if my loose wording in the poll vote caused offence. -- ChrisO 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troll (and stuff)

Recent poll-related argument entirely aside, I wanted to say that w/r/t your off-WP messages showing someone to be a troll, I'm kind of agreeing with you. Comments from this person to me have bordered on the freakily, non-sequiturially maniacal. What I can't figure out is why their edit history, talk page, etc., are so full of actually postive stuff. It's like someone who is generally a good editor, and then snorts a bunch of crank and goes berzerko for a while, and then resumes being normal. PS: Sorry if this inversion thing has seemed pointless to you (I gather that it does), but I genuinely feel strongly about it (I should almost say "felt"; I've given up on the putsch to make it happen). I don't see what's wrong with a little bit of belated balance even if it trying to get it makes a few people grumpy on the poll's talk page. Compared to scrapping the poll entirely, which was certainly another putsch when it was pre-emptively started, it seems dreadfully pedestrian. <shrug> Oh well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] Éc 11:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I too have to side-scroll on your talk page. It's because of the combined width of the ToC, the Archive box and the seahorse pic. If the pic were below the Archive box or something, this wouldn't happen. Also the bouncing Wikisphere occludes the Frost quote's end, and the flying woman occludes the page title. This is in Safari (latest) on MacOS 10.4.9, at 1024x768. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] Éc 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image on {{Sprotected2}}

Can I use the older image, the bronze padlock, on the aforementioned template since the current one appears too similar to {{Protected2}}?  ~Steptrip 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack?

Howdy, quick question about this edit. You described the text removed as a personal attack. While I think it was probably a baseless claim and an inappopriate inference, I'm not certain it's a personal attack, unless there's more to the story I'm not aware of. If this is the case, please be careful to use more precision when redacting comments like that in the future to avoid having your talk page swarmed by herds of angry weasels. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chairboy, thanks for your note. That edit refers to a series of personal attacks made against that editor on WR, and I feel the new editor who posted it was using the thread as an excuse to allude to those claims. I was bearing in mind that this is a new account who has already posted an RfCU against another established editor. He's out to make trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, roger that. Thanks for the clarification, was just dotting the T's and crossing the I's to make sure! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just in case

I think this is an empty threat [15] - but even as a threat it is sure a violation of policy. In case I a m blocked please comunicate on my talk page to resolve. Thanks. Zeq 13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cla68's RfA

I voted on that RfA, so I'm interested in the new developments (new for me, that is) regarding that attack site. As you offered Denny to e-mail it: may I ask the same favour? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to be that WR forum. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

After having read the site in question it's clear to me that it's indeed an attack site and must not be linked to. But changing the wording of an applicable policy while directly and personally involved in that situation, indicates a considerable conflict of interest. Even a newbie like me can recognize that, and I wish you hadn't done it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but it's still a manifest COI. But nevermind, it's none of my business. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

puppy butting in: I believe you may be misuderstanding what happened. SV went to check the policy, which does indeed prohibit linking, saw an ambiguity, and while she was there corrected it. The edit she made has no bearing on the current situation; if she had corrected a spelling error it would have been just as much not coi as the current series of events. AGF, and examine what exactly was edited, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do assume good faith on almost anyone's part all of the time. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, just to get this straight, should I appear to not have assumed good faith with you, I hereby apologize. I'm in no position to critize any long-time editor over an issue I don't have sufficient knowledge of, let alone someone who has contributed to this project like you have over the years. I'm sometimes a bit overhasty and have been told so before. Sorry again. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perplexed by RS

"It's a pity about the poor wording because I saw a few comments from people saying they'd opposed because they didn't want RS to become policy." Poor wording, OK—sorry if it's my own. But I'm completely dumbstruck by the implication in general. Part of the purpose of ATT is to make RS policy. (Isn't it?). Or, at least, part of the purpose is to eliminate it as a guideline, so only policy describes reliable sources. Do you honestly think it was wrong to ask about RS? How else could it have been stated? That ATT "abandons" RS is probably a better description than ATT "merges" RS. But this is semantic, given the desired result: when you type WP:RS you're led to a policy page, not the unruly guideline people cite so often. For days we had as a second option "Which pages, if any, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" with RS as one of the options. You never stated that you did not believe RS was being merged and I am wondering why you would imply it was a bad idea to ask about it in the poll. People opposed because of it? Well OK, those opinions are now in the open. Marskell 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand it was a repeat. I re-read it today and it's largely redundant, as it's always been. Which is why I ask the questions above. Do you honestly think it was wrong to ask about RS in creating the poll? You observe disapprovingly "I saw a few comments from people saying they'd opposed because they didn't want RS to become policy." Which means what? It was always policy. It is policy. But a guideline describes it. So. So, why shouldn't we have asked about it in the poll? Sorry, I was punched in the gut. Marskell 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't need to pose a question thrice. Khalas, as the Arabs say. Marskell 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe of interest

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/846006.html Zeq 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Where was the personal attack, I was merely quoting a news story on my own talk page.... So what's your interest in my contributions Slim... Mossad is it? Or maybe just Shabak but you want to aspire....? --Asucena 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colorful userpage

Hey, did someone make you Image:SVmop3.gif as a gift, or did you make it yourself? Don't mean to pry, I'm just curious-- it put a smile on my face when I saw it! Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attack sites

Question for you... what could it take to get this to at least Guideline if not policy status...? Theoretically... - Denny ^(talk) 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darvon Cocktail Deletion

Hi, I'd just like to challenge your deletion of the Darvon Cocktail article. Being "dangerous" is not a reason for deletion and I could cite a few WP pages that also give "dangerous" information. Please don't censor Wikipedia or push your POV. Greener grasses 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

wow - this unsigned comment made by 90.192.200.27 13:03, 7 April 2007

Wow what? Could you please explain why you deleted and protected the article? And please sign your name as I'm not even certain that that was from you. Greener grasses 07:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm responding to this from the Wikiquette alerts page. Could you please help Greener grasses (talk · contribs) figure out what policy/procedure you are enforcing by making this deletion? I assume part of the reason can be found in your deletion log comments, but can you articulate the issue here, so it doesn't look like you're just ignoring this user? Thanks much! --MalcolmGin 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow to respond. I deleted the page because it's dangerous and inappropriate. If someone else restores it, I won't interfere, but I don't want to be the one to do that. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have some chocolate

Happy Easter. I'm sorry for being unnecessarily abrupt recently... I'm waiting for the purple heart, and you deserve one yourself (I don't need to explain why). Chocolate is always a good gift to forget about these sorts of things... Marskell 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BüSo

I have left you a message on the discussion page there, as well as doing some editing. It would be appreciated if you read this and we discuss each others changes concerning this page. --Nemesis1981 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] maybe of intrest

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/839/sc1.htm Zeq 04:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Interrupted

Hi! I remember on ATT awhile back you responded in the middle of some of my comments. Anyway, I just discovered that template, and it might be less confusing to use it the next time you make a reply midway through someone's comment. Cheers, Armed Blowfish (mail) 05:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help if you can

You may be able to do more justice to this subject than I can: Etty_Hilesum. Thanks. Zeq 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review - Darvon cocktail

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Darvon cocktail. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

[edit] Image:GershomScholem.jpg

Hi, you added, then deleted, this picture a while ago. It is currently being used in Hebrew wiki (he:גרשם שלום). Should I delete it now from there (I am a SYSOP there) or is it only a local problem? DGtal 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on a potential CfD

Category:Virtual_reality_pioneers. Hopelessly POV (and OR) category, or am I being too prickly? Nandesuka 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why did you delete my request for help? -- User:BurningCandy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.164.23.2 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hi Slim.....

we seem to have set off on the wrong foot! - it's nice to meet you, and maybe some simple clarifications might help;

I'm not breaking any rules, guidelines or policies on the sockpuppet thing - an obvious sockpuppet account can have obvious, and valid, reasons for existing.

I've felt nervous about opening discussion on some of these sensitive issues, particularly with people I perceive to hold much power, like essjay previously, and yourself in this instance.

When I approached essjay i did feel a little shouted down by him, and various editors who supported him - and I felt this was unnecessary on their part - in the same way i feel it's mean of you to to say that there's no reason to pay attention to me, and that you won't take my views seriously.... please do!

I've read (you probably have too) some speculation about Denny's editing also - and if history and editing experience are important factors in considering an argument, can you see there may be questions there too? - it's probably not worth worrying about really.

We've never spoken on-wiki before, and you do so much hard work round here i don't want to annoy you (or get on the wrong side of you!) - so hopefully we'll move forward from here! - pop into my talk page anytime if you've still got concerns, and have a nice day! - Purples 02:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks...

for your note too! - I think we can leave that one there for now - i look forward to interacting usefully on the badsites page! - i'm heading back there to make a couple of points.... best - Purples 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durrah

Why are you using colons before quotes? I suggest using commas in the future. KazakhPol 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A BLP action? Please explain how my post on the talkpage is a BLP action. I dont understand the vague and incoherent threat you posted on my talkpage. KazakhPol 06:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You may explain your actions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Last section. KazakhPol 06:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another little note....

hi slim -

i saw your point about 'avoiding scrutiny' - responding to Risker's quoting the segregation, and heated area bits about sockpuppets.

That, and the following points seem quite strong to me, but problematic - because wouldn't your logic hold in any context? Editors are already saying 'why should i care what this guy says' or similar, which kind of defeats the concepts of segregation and 'heated area' use of sock puppets.

I don't think i'm imagining this tension - does the sock policy seem a bit contradictory or paradoxical to you? - i'm sure it wouldn't be the first policy to be both those things!

Anyways - i just wanted to once again say that there are no scary skeletons in my wiki-closet and i'm communicating my thoughts as clearly as i can, and i hope you're well... best - Purples 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Masson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Masson.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. - Y (Y NOT?) 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last note for today (i promise!)

....are there any similarities between the charge of sockpuppet, and associated discussion of my possible identity on AN/I and the stuff that goes on on Wikipedia Review?

don't mean to beg the question, but it's an interesting point, no? - anyways, you're clearly very smart, and hard working, and a huge wiki-asset - and i'm truly sorry to have apparently pissed you off so much - you know, i'm quite friendly to talk to really, although i might tell you to fuck off once in a while to avoid the dangers of pseudo-politeness !! (that is a joke)

best - Purples 07:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious trolling going on here.--MONGO 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

? - Purples 08:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ymmv

Your mileage may vary.

User talk:KazakhPol is on my watchlist, because he has been thoughtful, and given me heads-ups about news articles he thought I would be interested in. I had no hesitation asking him for some advice a week or two ago, when I read that one of the Guantanamo captives had worked as a cashier for Adbuhalim Pakhrutdinov in a company called al Baraka, or AL Barakat. And he responded courteously, in short order.

I saw your recent comment on his talk page, with its warning he risked being blocked for violations of BLP. I followed the link you he provided, to see what the problem was. I found a link to an {{afd}} discussion. Heated, yes. But I didn't see what it had to do with BLP.

I read your comment there, that you thought all his contributions were negative.

Maybe it is none of my business. I don't follow KP's contributions closely, only those on the articles we share an interest in. But I do find him a helpful, courteous contributor. And I would like to continue to be able to call on his advice as I did the other week.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 09:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

If you link to an attack site again, you may be blocked from editing. The Arbcom has ruled that "Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [16] Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was pretty much my question. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that I only copied a link from some earlier comment on that exact talk page? I've removed it just now [17]. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mango arbitration requested - you are named.

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ^(talk) 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Durrah

As you requested, I have gone into greater depth on problems with the article on the article's talkpage. I dont think they are particularly contentious as it is mostly word choice. KazakhPol 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)