User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Just a note

You do a good job.--Dakota 05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You do a good job.--Dakota 05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good work

The Society Barnstar
Awarded for your nuanced and balanced dissemination of information regarding animal rights activism in human society. Specifically inspired by an superb re-write of the Animal Liberation Front article. Rockpocket 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sub-page code?

Do you know what the URL string is to display all sub pages under a given Wikipedia page? I remember seeing it once but can't remember now for the life of me. - Denny (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revertion of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Hello (I really love this discussion page - sorry for spoiling it). Since you reverted my modifications, you may now want to present your objections. Regards. Michelet-Me laisser un message 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Answered. [Hey, what do you claim to be? A SlimVirgin, or a PotbellySeahorse ? (LOL - oops. sorry)]. Michelet-Me laisser un message 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointing

Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me, Maam

Hi Slim, we seem to have another dispute. I just saw a list compiled by you, with my username on it. Now, while I do not deny I read LaRouche, I do not make a list of people suspected of being agents or associated with agents of anti-LaRouche people, as I could do. I believe that the evidence speaks for itself. Now, if I were a LaRouche member, I would make my point, admit my identity and as long as my point stayed available for all to see on the talk pages, I would be happy for telling the truth. I would appreciate knowing what you are playing at. If there is a charge to address, address it to me directly, or kindly take my username off the list. [1] <--- said list --Nemesis1981 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I explained elsewhere, one of the reasons your name's on the list is that you added to an article that one living person was a vile lesbian, another slept with small boys, while a third was a piece of shit, and a fourth had a small penis, and so on, all about people identified as enemies of LaRouche. The evidence does, as you say, speak for itself. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RfA tallies

Just because it isn't only a vote doesn't mean it isn't also one. The numbers incline but do not necessitate, to paraphrase Leibniz. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For my expression of that principle see my notes at the top of this page, for example. It just so happens that "not a vote" is a convenient shorthand :) --bainer (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

FYI, here's an example of attempted vote stacking at a community ban discussion. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova These follow-up questions are particularly troubling.[2] [3] [4]

That effort didn't get too far because I've been monitoring the board closely, but suppose I go on Wikibreak? Suppose the canvassing tactics get sneaky? Durova[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]] 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's getting noticed.[5] DurovaCharge! 01:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Chekhov: cheers

Thank you for reading and for the glass of Champagne! (Oh, dear, was it traumatic being on the front page: someone changed all the carefully combined refs into "ref name = " thingies, etc. Never mind.) This seems a good moment to tell you what my favourite article on Wikipedia is: Rudolf Vrba — I often point it out to people as an example of what Wikipedia can do at its best.

I've dewatchlisted all Attribution and policy pages for the moment, out of sheer despair. :( Hopefully, I'll get involved again when a new way forward has emerged. You were ahead of those people, that's all: they'll catch up. (: qp10qp 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] transclusion mockup in progress

See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion. WAS 4.250 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Hi there. I noticed your recent reversion of a response SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) made to a comment on her Talk page. As you didn't provide a rationale in your edit summary, I reverted your edit; I'm sorry if my action was in error. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I went out to prepare for the Nor'easter and came back to see the reverts; I'm sure it was probably just a mistake. Thanks for fixing it, FV. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. It was completely unintentional. I took a bunch of pages off my watchlist earlier — almost everything to do with ATT, including user talk pages of people involved in it. I must have hit rollback without thinking instead of unwatch. My apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all ... I always wonder how those buttons work :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I presumed it was unintentional, what with your credentials and reputation :) Sorry for the trouble. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:unreferenced

Unreferenced used point to reliable sources and then pointed to ATT for the brief period ATT was policy. It was asked that it be changed back due to the fact that ATT was no longer policy, and you changed the template to point to verifiability because RS also is not policy.

RS, is however a wiki guideline, and was what the template pointed to prior to the whole ATT thing. Is there any reason other than that V is policy and RS only guideline to point to V over RS? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack sites

See Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites#What_is_an_.22attack_site.22 I hope that you can comment on what I wrote there. Andries 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

Can you protect the page? 3RR against user Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) He was blocked before 2 days ago for 3RR.--M-renewal 14:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dking references being removed as "spam"

If you go to the bottom of the Dking discussion page, you will see that some people are in process of removing from Wikipedia references to my website and references to published articles archived on my website, on grounds that it's spam. Most of the article references were to properly sourced material on LaRouche within a number of LaRouche-related articles. In at least one case, the sentence in which the reference was cited has been removed, not just the reference itself. I was under the impression that Chip and I could cite our own work on LaRouche. Some of the citations being removed (as on the electoral history of the U.S. Labor Party in the U.S. Labor Party article, and on JDO infiltration of the LaRouche security staff in the JDO article) refer to things for which I am probably the only puhlished source available. The anti-spam people express indigation even over links I put on discussion pages as part of dialogue with other editors. In addition, the list of what has been or is to be deleted includes at least one link to a discussion page that I don't recall ever visiting, much less posting on. Having only a very limited knowledge of Wiki admin procedures, I would appreciate your advice on all this.--Dking 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

More of a problem is the WP:COI issue of a person linking to his own website - the spam issue is peripheral (the pattern was picked up on by the anti-spam bots). There is a discussion on WP:COIN here. RJASE1 Talk 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darvon cocktail

This is disappointing to read. I think this is a dangerous precedent you're attempting to set here, especially when it's a blatant misuse of your tools to achieve a personal goal. The DRV absurdly endorsed you on this, and that's completely wrong. I'm going to again request that you undelete it per the speedy deletion guidelines, or I may choose to take other action on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Hmm, spotted the comment on my watchlist. While I think I might understand your feelings, perhaps in this case, that page should not have been deleted? Wikipedia is not censored. :-/ --Kim Bruning 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking an unprecedented test step in appealing the DRV at DRV. I don't know what will come of it, because I don't think anyone's tried to directly appeal a DRV result before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
DRV is broken. I don't think there's much point. But feel free to try.

Ah, I see it was unsourced. I've asked Xoloz not to salt the article though, since a future version can be made that does provide a source. --Kim Bruning 17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I wish you would assume good faith; "a blatant misuse of your tools to achieve a personal goal" is a bit dramatic. (What would my "personal goal" be?) The article was entirely unsourced. I couldn't find any references to it in medical literature. Someone had earlier tried to add exact amounts, also without references. In addition, it's a dangerous topic to publish information on; hard to tell whether more or less dangerous without sources. All in all, it was a dodgy article apparently based on someone's personal knowledge. If you think it's capable of being encyclopedic, why not rewrite it with suitable sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Not dramatic at all. Given that you ignored the first two questions about it, and your deletion summaries certainly don't reflect any sort of actual CSD policy, the evidence is what it is. The point is to keep you from using CSD for your own purposes when the community doesn't want that to happen, I'm trying to fix that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The deletion was endorsed, so I'm not sure what you mean about the community. As I said, if you want it to be an article, why don't you rewrite it with sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, just to clarify: whenever I've seen articles up for deletion on the grounds of no sourcing, or poor sourcing, if I've really wanted them to be kept, I've rewritten them with sources during the AfD. As I recall, it has always led to the article being kept. If a page is truly encyclopedic, and has sufficient third-party reliable sources and no OR (and there are no libel/BLP issues), it's unusual for it to be removed; in fact, I can't think of a single example of it happening (though I don't follow deletion issues much, so I can't guarantee that it hasn't). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The deletion shouldn't have been endorsed is the point - how your violation passed through is completely insane. I was glad to do so at the AfD that never arose, but I'm not going to play the game at DRV and endorse such abuses, especially on a salted article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Articles which appear to be based on people's personal opinion, with no sources, and for which no sources can be found, ought to be deleted. Which part of the deletion criteria makes you think otherwise? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps they should be deleted, but not speedily - there's a reason we have a speedy deletion criteria, and there's a reason those criteria are expected to be strictly interpreted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Guy burgess.jpg

Could you please provide a source for this image and update the copyright tag? Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Why, if you now see the point about freely accessible sources, as per Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Query on 11th, did you archive out the other thread on the free accessible sources topic (namely Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Free_sources) whose last posting was just 4 days prior on 7th April. That thread would therefore seem still to be current, especially as you had deleted the section the same 4 days earlier ?

I agree the talk page needs archiving, but that should not be of active or very recently active threads. It seemed cleaner just to restore the whole archive and, no doubt in due course, allow someone else to have a better go as to where to place the cut-off point :-)

I see you have again deleted out the free-sources section - I generally try to follow WP:1RR, so I'll leave for now. But this would benefit from your discussing on the talk page, as well as the input of views of a wider number of editors - larger numbers helps prevents differing views turning either into revert warring or from getting personal :-) Yours David Ruben Talk 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS

Hi Ms Virgin,

You are apparently famous. I have seen your name around.

Regarding this edit, I do not think I agree with you. I hope you will give my argument fair consideration.

I think that as editors, people must use judgment about sources. I think it is not unreasonable to consider various factors in that review. For example a very old cited and researched article might be overcome by something more recent. The age of the article becomes relevant. But that was one of the things you removed, saying "No original research". I do not think it is the same as original research to use editorial oversight and judgment. --Blue Tie 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Girl on Your Page

Hi, Miss Slim! Can I borrow/copy the blue girl on your page, because I want to put that on my userpage. Note: I am kind of getting sick of the flowers! Cheers! Real96 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mail

I forgot to mention, you're welcome to reply on-wiki, of course. —AldeBaer 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem FA

However it turns out, it was brave of you to try it, and it's a great article. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million for the barnstar; your statement on the FAC was right on target. I'll add the barnstar to my userpage once I get around to re-designing it. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland

I'm just now posting to Mantanmoreland's talk page to explain. Just a sec. —AldeBaer 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tsunami Butler

I now realize that you banned Tsunami Butler. I know that you had many long-running arguments with her, but that is exactly why I think you should NOT block her. I don't think she was 100% right all the time, but she presented logical arguments for her positions and was civil. She also did useful editing, especially on Lyndon LaRouche. If you block her, it undermines faith in the system, because it looks like punishment for disagreeing with you. If she broke rules, then an administrator who is uninvolved should be the one blocking -- on the other hand, if it is just the same "suspicion of being a sockpuppet" that caused you to block me, then it should be thrown out altogether. Otherwise, people will get the idea that Wikipedia is some sort of Plutocracy where dissent is punished by banishment. --Don't lose that number 05:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how correct you think the block is, you should have someone else do it, for the reasons I list above. Also, why is it necessary to have a permanent block? --Don't lose that number 20:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Established users with significant constructive edits should not be indefinitely blocked except when there is a community ban." (Wikipedia:Blocking policy)--Don't lose that number 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please express your concerns

SlimVirgin, could you express your concerns on the article talk page so that other editors will be "clued in" and can make efforts to avoid "deterioration"? Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing your "deterioration" comment was regarding the liberal usage of the Cho name, but obviously some talk page commentary about your view of how the lead deteriorated would be helpful. Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, your tightened version looks good...recentism will no doubt see it balloon back up though. Thanks for responding. (→Netscott) 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] raising prose standards

Dear SV

Yes indeed, I share your feelings on this matter. I don't know what state the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors is in; it seemed to be a good start. Unfortunately, one of their best people, User:Rintrah, has left the project. One option is to expand the role of that Wikiproject; another is to start a new body, possibly in association with the League. Or perhaps you're thinking of a quite different function. What do you see as the MO of such a WIkiproject? Tony 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm pushing for a revision of the poorly written non-free content criteria; the discussion started here, and my draft, not yet worked on, is here. I expect resistance from people who've had a hand in constructing the current version, including GMaxwell; he's a good writer (so why can't he see that the current version is unsatisfactory?) and has all of the copyright expertise required to rationalise and simplify the expression of the policy.
I'd be very pleased to have your input. Tony 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea! Tony 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obtuse

Hi.

Last week, on the Talk:David Irving page, you commented:

It seems obtuse not to call Irving a discredited historian. It's hard to imagine how he could be more discredited as an historian than to have the High Court say he had deliberately misrepresented historical evidence.

The reason I removed the first part of your comment is that because, frankly, it angered me, and I feared it would anger others. Why did it anger me? Because here we arguing over whether calling Irving discredited is too POV to be included in the article, and you are inferring that someone is being obtuse because they disagree with that POV. Did it even occur to you that it might be possible to disagree with the Judge's decision? Thus your comment as such and in that context was uncivil, or at least, provoking. Now luckily, before your comment could be restored your potentially aggravating remark, the conversation had moved on.

I will admit that by my poor choice of words, I've angered a few here (notably, Guettarda). But I was relatively inexperienced (still am), and was unaware how out of such simple misunderstandings can arise perception of incivility. Please be more careful in the future. --Otheus 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear friend

My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends...
It gives a lovely light!
Edna St. Vincent Millay

To a special person,
who has been wronged and mistreated, and yet
has always found the strength to make a stand
and fight for her ideals with pride.
For inspiring me in my darkest hour
with your unfailing courage and integrity.
thank you, my friend!

Phaedriel
07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Need for update to RS

Per my comments on RS, I have two questions. First, as you are one of the experts and most active editrors on this issue, what do you think about my suggestion here. If you could do such a merge, adjusting the text so it reflects our policies, it would be extremly usefu. Second - perhaps you'd like to see how lack of such examples impedes discussions; one of the most recent discussions I have is here. Honestly, neither side can cite fullproof policies (as WP:ATT/FAQ is not a policy yet), and so we cannot reach a consensus on whether the sources (major non-English newspapers) are reliable or not... and we are going on and on in circles (another similar case can be seen here, I managed to find good academic sources for that one, but for the other one - no luck).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So sorry

Brandt's unblock is wrong. The hurt to you and other who's lives he's tried to disect probably can't be undone. He shouldn't have been allowed to set a foot here. I can't believe Jimbo just went ahead and did it when he knew the community was dead against it. And I'm sorry I'm not brave enough to use my main account to stand up for you (and the others) and risk my identity falling under his scrutiny. Can't quite believe it 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it stinks.--MONGO 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Right on Can't quite believe it and MONGO. I am sorry too. He should never have been unblocked. I don't have the nerve to use my main account either because of what it would bring. All the trouble Brandt has been to you and others has just been swept under the rug for no good purpose.--Don't like sour pickles 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. As you know, I think Brandt should be permabanned. I'm disgusted that Jimbo has fucked you over like this. I've edited my userpage accordingly. Sadly, my voice is far too small compared with those of Tony Sidaway and Dave Gerard and the other KoolAiders who put blind obedience to the cult leader above human decency. Grace Note 23:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like it has now been resolved. Seems like there may have been a miscommunication between Jimbo and him about his block and/or his intentions after he was unblocked.--MONGO 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tags on Liviu Librescu

Why did you delete the semiprotected tag? I don't want to revert it without discussion, but I don't understand why it was deleted. K. Lásztocska 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Thanks. K. Lásztocska 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shirahadasha RfA

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA tally

Is there a reason why you keep adding the tally? RfA isn't a vote, it's simply crying out for people to think it is. What was wrong with it at the bottom, out of the way, so people could actually have some discussion without it distractingly being needed to be updated? Majorly (hot!) 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, no big deal... :) Majorly (hot!) 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HonourableSchoolboy

It seems rather doubtful that HonourableSchoolboy and Tsunami Butler are actually socks of Herschelkrustofsky, although I believe they fall within the remedy in LaRouche and are righteous bans using the duck test. Therefore the extension of the ban on Herschelkrustofsky seems inappropriate. Fred Bauder 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war?

Chaps - I'm trying to de-fuse the animal testing articles, and I'm worried that as you two have strong anti-vivisectionist views, and I have strongly pro-medical testing (although I do not in any way condone animal cruelty or unnecessary testing), an edit war is liable to break out! I'd be obliged if either of you have MSN Messenger, if you could drop me a line at hawkertyphoon@hotmail.com to discuss this - it's easier than talk pages! if not, drop me a lin on my talk page with an arguemnt as to why we can't put percentages in? Thanks, Richard (AKA Hawker Typhoon 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

The problem I have with this is that the BBC article says about 750 dogs - a percentage derived from the infobox in the article, which has percentages. We shouldn't be 'leaning' them either way, pro- or anti-, or if we have to leabn them, we should lean them both ways at the same time - that is, percentages and derived figures. Hawker Typhoon 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That's excellent - over the next few days I might make one or two more edits, but i won't try and hide anything! I can't express my beliefs on this much (I'm in the forces, and they never ever approve), but I feel that hiding facts or even giving one viewpoint precedence only hurts the image of the organistaion. Thanks for listening, regardless! Hawker Typhoon 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input

I'm asking you and a few others for input. I'm moderating a debate on an article. Seems there is a dispute as to whether secondary sources are valid and that hinges on whether the source's characterization of the following quote is accurate. How would you rate the following quotation, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely neutral, 5 being completely anti-semitic:

The reason behind this whole charade of Jewish ecumenism is one, and one reason only: It is so the Jews can rebuild the nation of Israel that was lost after the time of Solomon. Everything the Jews do today is motivated by that single thought, and they are shrewdly using the Catholic Church to help them accomplish their goal. Prelates in the Catholic Church think that by helping the Jews they are fulfilling the mandate of neighborly love. In their perversion of the Gospel, they have convinced themselves that this mandate cannot include converting the Jews, for that would cause "offense." [God forbid that the Gospel should cause offense! (cf., 1 Cor 1:23-24)]. They have deceived themselves, and the Jews of today are feeding off this deception in an effort to build their long awaited "nation state." The Jews have no interest in Christ or Christianity. They are merely using Catholics as pawns for their own self-interest. When they have succeeded, then they will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors.

If you need more context, just look in my contrib history. --Otheus 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

copied from my talk page, Otheus 12:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Otheus, I'd need more context, and I can't see from your contribs which article it's about. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is on Robert Sungenis. More context can be found here, which labels the text as "blatantly anti-semitic". The full text of the source is not available from Sungenis' site, without purchase. However, the question is whether the reviewing website is useful as a reliable source. Relevant discussion is here.

[edit] For Creol

Regarding the Simple English Wikipedia, yes it's me. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Creol 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Poppers

Could you please take a look at the vandalism going on on Poppers? Thank you. --91.89.5.107 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

FACs needing feedback
edit
Brian Horrocks Review it now
Last of the Summer Wine Review it now
Roman Catholic Church Review it now
Strapping Young Lad Review it now
SummerSlam (1988) Review it now
SummerSlam (2007) Review it now

Hi. I read your message on Tony's page; I agree. It seems that the FAC standards are lowering because of the sheer amount of entires compared to the handful of reviewers. Feedback is inconsistent; some articles get plenty, and other articles get hardly none. My template (right) has a laundry list right now. — Deckiller 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi SlimVirgin

Hi SlimVirgin,

I'm responding to your questions to me. I couldn't figure out how to reply from within the message you sent, so I went to your talk page. Hope this is okay.

Here is the message you sent me:

"Hi Munatobe, your editing of Poppers has been reported as vandalism, I think because you seem to be removing large amounts of referenced material. I'm having difficulty judging whether the removal is justified because I don't know anything about the topic. Could you explain why you've removed the material that was referenced? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)"

I'm working in the poppers article to help clean it up. You'll notice in the talk page that there have been discussions about how best to do that. Anything I've removed has been either unsourced/un-cited or is redundant and was combined into another section. I have been careful not to delete anything that was sourced, cited or supported by credible back up.

There is someone from a German IP who seems to be mischievous and trying to cause trouble. I suspect this is the person who has reported my contributions as vandalism. If not this person, then it may have been a similarly mischievous person using an IP in San Francisco.

I'm not a vandal and have no intention of vandalizing the article.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for looking into this matter. Munatobe7 21:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My BLP argument

I've been thinking of responding to your request for BLP clarification all day and this is it [6] I think we shoudl be heading in the other direction and allowing much greater BLP facilitation. There are a lot of good people out there whereas DB represents the privacy obsessed minority and while we definittely should give him space here we shouldnt buy into his arguments. Regards, SqueakBox 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost

SlimVirgin, you might want to check out this Signpost article. Is the external link appropriate? What should be done? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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. BetacommandBot 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremiah Duggan story

Thanks for your note. I must say, however, that this story, which is being described as a conspiracy theory, has been added to an awful lot of Wikipedia articles. --Masai warrior 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My translation of the headline of the Kurier article: "Four years after the suicide of Jeremiah Duggan, the conspiracy theory of murder (Mordverschwörung) finds new adherents, but no evidence." --Masai warrior 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If you use "murder plot," it doesn't function in the context. To say that more and more people support the murder plot would be a bit absurd. If you understand German, it may help to see the original: "Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben - Vier Jahre nach dem Selbstmord von Jeremiah Duggan findet die Mordverschwörung immer neue Anhänger, aber keine Beweise." I can also tell you that the author, Degen, wrote a similar article in the Wiesbadener Tagblatt, but since it is the same author I did not include it. --Masai warrior 05:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steinberg

Hello. Don't you think it's important to note that Steinberg, a high-ranking member of the LaRouche Movement, is in fact Jewish, given the fact that much of the tone of that article was that Duggan was allegedly "killed by the LaRouchies" because he was a Jew? Would knowledge of the fact that many Jews are in the organization and in fact are in positions of power close to LaRouche give the reader a better understanding of the validity charges of antisemitism against LaRouche? 71.247.242.60 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATT working party

Hi Slim! I'm wondering if you and Jimbo have had a chance to discuss the working party ... or is it OBE? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick favor?

Hi, I need an admin to make a very quick change to a protected article? Following an edit war, the article has been put on protected status at my request, and I want it so to remain, but there is a wording error that all parties to the edit war agree is mistaken and would like corrected. The Ann Althouse article claims that "A minor controversy erupted in late 2005 following remarks..."; it should read, "A minor controversy erupted in September 2006 following remarks..." I don't want to unprotect the page, so if an admin could make the change that'd be ideal. If you have a minute, could you fix this? Thanks, Simon Dodd 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SV. :) Simon Dodd 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservativism, please unprotect.

Could you please unprotect neoconservativism, I would like to edit it, thanks. Scifiintel 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting. Scifiintel 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP and Dennis King's blog

OK, I stand corrected. I found another cite from Dennis King that was published, and is not as gossipy as his blog. --Don't lose that number 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies and guidelines

SlimVirgin, I really appreciate the work you do on the policies and guidelines. I have several on my Watchlist to track what's going on, and often I feel uncomfortable with the changes that people make. And then, almost without exception, you're there to put things back on track. I think you have a good sense of what the community wants, and a balanced perspective, and I respect the tireless direction that you give to this facet of Wikipedia. TimidGuy 11:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] apartheid allegation article

I saw you voted in the AFD for this page. Check out the current straw poll at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll for a present initiative to rename the page.--Urthogie 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calling all synarchists

This looks quite familiar: [7] Like the HK sockpuppet that you recently blocked (HonourableSchoolboy), this account seems to be editing pages in my recent contributions history... I'm sorry that you keep geting called in to help deal with the LaRouche accounts. I'm quite frustrated at this stage, despite not having dealt with them nearly as often as you have. I can imagine your frustration. 172 | Talk 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your question on the NPA discussion

Free Republic primarily consists of a message board, and there are a number of posts on that message board which appear to engage in the sort of practices described in the current iteration of the NPA policy (i.e. "the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants"). It's clear, however, that Wikipedia is far from the primary focus of the site, so I'm uncertain whether it would be "a website that engages in..." or simply "a website that allows its users to engage in...". If you'd like, I can email you some of the relevant links so you can evaluate the content I've mentioned. JavaTenor 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sent. JavaTenor 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Slim! I saw you ask about Free Republic on the NPA page.[8] I assume that User:JavaTenor emailed you some offending links. I was wondering what your analysis of these Free Republic links are. I've seen some attack material on Free Republic and if they were linked here I would remove them. I feel that your input on this is valuable and felt it inappropriate to inquire on the NPA talk page, so I am asking here. I am heading out right now, but I will look for your response here. Have a good day and thank you, hombre de haha 21:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical happenings

Hello SV, I'd like to talk theory with you for a second. I don't know if you're the right person to ask, but I'll try anyway...

I've written a book that's going through editing at the moment, and for its freedom Wikipedia plays a part near the end of the story. (I don't know whether I'm going to be allowed to yet, however...) Now I have one of the secondary characters as an important source to raise awareness of the protagonists' cause, and as such edits Wikipedia in such a way (i.e. fully cited, etc) with a truth that people need to know but the military doesn't want them to, then locks the page so that people have to read it. He then leaves a confession on the talk page justifying himself, and I've basically put it so that this is left almost as it is so everyone can see it and rally to the main characters' cause, and so that nobody (or few people but they don't want to) can get rid of it.

Now - that's the theory, but is this actually possible on Wikipedia? Lady BlahDeBlah 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee hee. *rubs hands together evilly* That does actually sound far more plausible than the character just being an admin. 'Cause what he's doing is good - he's defending the protagonists who have all been denounced by the military as terrorists; they aren't in the slightest, and the military have actually abducted their kids. The intent is to make sure as many people know as possible. I was thinking of the supporters forming an online rally to keep 'the truth' up for as long as possible - but looking at my notes I assume this wouldn't include the actual Main Page unless it was ITN worthy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lady BlahDeBlah (talk • contribs) 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] David Icke

Please see Talk:David Icke#not appropriate?. Oh and your "blue fairy girl" image blocks the upper left menu controls (using Wikipedia's "simple" stylesheet). -Eep² 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

[9] Zeq 10:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to attack sites on user pages

The "debate" on NPA talk gets more and more confusing. I deleted a link from a user page, citing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site, but was reverted without comment. There are also several other user pages and user talk pages containing that link, e.g. this one. What should be done about that? —AldeBaer 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the WP:ATT Working Party

Hi Slim! Since you archived my query before responding to it, I imagine you overlooked it. Folks are wondering if you and Jimbo have had a chance to discuss the working party ... or is it OBE? The effort remains in a sort of limbo pending your direction. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold enough to try to propose a place where discussion can take place. I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 19:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

If long URLs mess up diffs[1] and you really want the issue resolved, you could check if a bug report has been filed about long words making reading diffs difficult at the MediaZilla website. Then, if a search or two doesn't find anything, file a bug and suggest they fix it (maybe they could wrap long words, adding a spacebar in the middle of the word, in diff view?). Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 20:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT

You wrote:

You're reverting once more against multiple editors. Please stop it. YIf we'd wanted the current wording of V, NOR, and RS, there would have been no need for a merge, would there?

Who is we? The point of the merge was as I understood it to combine the three pages of ease of use and to iron out any inconsistencies between them, but not to change the meaning of the current policies. If one section of the current NOR is to be reproduced on WP:ATT then why not use the current wording of the NOR section as it is the current policy? When the future of WP:ATT is known, then if it is to be the new Policy page there will be no inconsistencies between them. If it is to be relegated to a guideline then we may as well adopt the same approach as is now done in WP:RS.

BTW I will take your statement "Your edits around these pages are almost always unhelpful." to be "I think your edits around these pages are almost always unhelpful." As I am editing in good faith, I of course do not think that my edits are unhelpful otherwise I would not make them, and as I assume that your edits to Wikipedia are made with the best of intentions and that you think that they are useful. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to you posting to my talk page where you said "because you and your friends manage to scupper it anyway". I am not a member of any wikipedian group, and as far as I am aware, I am neither more or less friendly with anyone I correspond with on this project. Further I did not oppose ATT as a concept (See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/Archive 1#Should WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged at all?). I did not express an opinion either way in the straw poll.
I am sorry that my explanations are too confusing for you to understand. I'll break it down so that neither of us is confused. I thought I had written them clearly but as you do not understand me I'll try again. Earlier this year ATT was touted as a replacement for V, NOR and RS. Or do you not agree? As I understand it at the moment there is a committee deciding the best course of action for the ATT page and its relationship with V,NOR and RS, as there was no consensus in the straw poll. Or do you not agree? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear from your answer, but can I take it as read that ATT was touted as a replacement for V, NOR and RS? Did you really mean: "But this [reverting] is what you do a lot, and writing isn't your strong point, so it's particularly frustrating when you do it over the writing."? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deja vu and reverts

Perhaps the reason you are experiencing deja vu is due to harrassment of others. And the only reverts I am doing are to reverts that you have done -- I am quite aware of the policies. Are you? As an administrator, you are "expected to use their powers in a neutral way, forming and implementing the consensus of the community." The personal bias in regard to Harvard Referencing is yours -- the edits that I have made have not removed the term "harvard referencing" but have clarified that this is a regional term AND have provided evidence on the name (which you removed as it doesn't suit your personal bias). This is not a personal view; it is fact. Only 26% of online hits for HR have anything to do with source documentation; the rest have to do with Harvard University. In terms of the "Rhetoric" article, you have pursued me there and continue to harass. The claim that The Rhetoric is the premier work on persuasion ever written is generally accepted amongst the large discipline of rhetoricians -- of which I am a well-qualified part. Two of the leading texts on rhetorical history were cited -- and a page number is not needed as it is a general reference of a widely held claim. If an article starts in one documentation form, it is supposed to stay in that form (go read the policy). I started it in an author-date form, NOT a note form; and corrected the few in-process errors that I had made. In an attempt to appease you, I added text under each heading -- and you went back and still deleted sections. Cyg-nifier 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 40,000

Yes, we must be nuts... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Gere

Hi, I noticed your question put to Sparkzilla. I don't wish to answer on his behalf, but I thought I should at least give some context. The discussion is occurring at the BLP noticeboard. The issue involves two separate allegations about Gere. The first is a false and malicious allegation about Gere's sexual behaviour. Sparkzilla has argued for inclusion on the grounds that it is an "urban legend." I have argued that it is false and malicious and hence is clearly non-encyclopaedic as well as violating WP:BLP. The second unsubstantiated and malicious allegation concerns Gere's marriage to Crawford, specifically the allegation that the marriage was a sham to conceal Gere's purported homosexuality. No credible source asserts this allegation as true. Sparkzilla argues, however, that because the allegation has been referred to in some sources, and because Gere and Crawford printed a letter denying the allegation, it is notable and encyclopaedic. I argue the allegation is non-encyclopaedic and that inclusion of this allegation is insensitive, contentious, non-neutral, and non-factual. I argue that the printed denial means that editors should be more cautious about including this material, rather than less. I hope this helps. Please see the BLP noticeboard if you would like further context. It has also been discussed at the Gere talk page and at the Jimbo Wales talk page (under the heading "BLP and notability"). Thanks. FNMF 04:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for deciding to post a comment at the Gere discussion. And for your work regarding BLP matters generally. FNMF 06:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just thought I would send you my latest comment on the BLP noticeboard, in reply to AnonEMouse. See here. Thanks. FNMF 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I understand you are not particularly interested in the actual dispute at the Richard Gere entry, but I wanted to inform you of the latest development and seek your opinion. The extremely long discussion at the BLP noticeboard reached the point that at least seven editors have made clear that there is no consensus to allow inclusion of this material. Just when I felt that this discussion was heading toward a close, user Jossi opened a well-intentioned RfC at the Gere talk page. My feeling is that it was incorrect to open this RfC prior to the close of the ongoing discussion at the BLP noticeboard, because it will allow editors to escape the conclusions of the BLP noticeboard discussion, that is, specifically, the conclusion that there is no consensus to include the contentious material. Editors who opposed inclusion are now prematurely faced with another huge discussion (and don't forget there have been extensive discussions at the Gere talk page and the BLP noticeboard, but also at the Jimbo Wales talk page, discussion being initiated at new forums by Sparkzilla whenever he disliked the direction of discussion at a particular forum). I don't think I have the energy to fight this issue any further (my motivation was not an interest in the Gere entry, but in the stakes of allowing unsubstantiated and false malicious allegations onto the pages of Wikipedia), and I feel frustrated that this RfC was opened in a way that allows editors to avoid the conclusions of the BLP noticeboard discussion. Any assistance would be welcome, bearing in mind I don't think I can go through the entire process all over again. Also, thanks for your prior assistance and interest. FNMF 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. The discussion was at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#BLP_and_urban_legends, but the discussion at the BLP noticeboard was more recent and extensive. The problem with just ignoring Sparkzilla is that AnonEMouse is now also supporting inclusion of this material (which to me is clearly non-encyclopaedic if not indeed simply prurient), and Sparkzilla is quite a determined character, although I cannot fathom his motives. FNMF 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: when I suggested to Jossi that it may have been an error to open the RfC on Gere prior to the conclusion of the BLP noticeboard discussion, he indicated that the RfC could simply be closed (see here). However, I'm not sure how to go about this (inexperience), but more importantly if I do so I feel certain Sparkzilla et al will object on the grounds that I am too involved with the issue. Sorry if this sounds like I'm pestering you about this issue. But thanks. FNMF 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP revert war

Can you please provide a specific link to where this was agreed to on talk? I never agreed, but will accept if you can show me that most others did. It's a big talk page, but from my looking at it no agreement was reached. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I know you're out there, I can see you editing the very policy in question... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Anon, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Here is the section where people say that the shorter version is clearer and describes what's currently done, if that's what you meant. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a link like that was what I meant. From that section:
  • Agree: Crum375, SlimVirgin, ElinorD, David Gerard, Starblind, Tom Harrison, WAS 4.250
  • Don't: Kla'quot, Black Falcon, badlydrawnjeff, AnonEMouse, Miss Mondegreen, nae'blis
About one statement from each, minimal back-and-forth, just a statement of where each stands. Kla'quot offered a compromise, that got minimal response, and isn't what you're writing. I know you're more experienced than I am, but can you really read that and call it agreement? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You forgot Andrew Lenahan in support of the shorter. But as you know, these things are never done by numbers. The editors who want the longer version include some with very little experience, and some who have attitudes toward BLPs that I'd say are directly opposed to the spirit and letter of the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I counted him, he's Starblind. Note that the longer version is also the one that was there before the one that came up, so we're talking about making a change to the spirit and letter of the policy here. I'd rather not cast stones at specific editors ... especially since I suspect if you look at it hard enough, I will be among the stone targets! Instead, can we actually try to reach consensus? By that, I mean something most people can at least live with. Instead, what we have is a revert war, something we as admins really shouldn't be doing, what with "serving as an example" and all. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you, by the way. I'm losing track of what we're talking about, to be honest. The sentence is "After deletion of a BLP, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation." That is demonstrably true; it's what currently happens; and it's been happening since I started editing two and a half years ago, so there really is no problem with it. When it comes to admin actions, the policy should describe the best practice of experienced admins, and that's what it does. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for that! :-) See, what I'm worried about is that it's too short. All it says is that any admin may choose to protect any deleted biography, it says nothing about not every one needing it, that the protection should be temporary, that other people may have the same name, that another admin may choose to unprotect later. Sure, you all say on the talk page that all that is obvious, but it's not, and it's getting written in to a very important Wikipedia:policy. Sure, I know that currently experienced admins protect some BLPs, but that's not what it says, it says any admin may protect all of them. I'm darn sure that in just a few months when the talk page is archived, some enthusiastic new admin will absolutely permanently protect each and every single deleted BLP, forever, and when anyone objects will wrap himself in this sentence like a flag. The longer one, which points to WP:SALT is not that much longer, and doesn't prevent experienced admins from protecting those BLPs that need it, it merely prevents inexperienced admins from protecting all of them that don't. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If any new admin starting protecting pages for no reason, whether a deleted BLP or anything else, someone would put him right. Long explanations of when to do this, but not that, aren't helpful in policies. They end up not being read, for one thing. The more succinct the guidance is the better, as a rule, and then it leaves admins some room for common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
See, by putting that sentence there, it's no longer "no reason". It's a very good reason, "it says so in policy", and, frankly, even the arbcom would uphold that if the text survived a few months. Note that I'm not asking for much, just a note that WP:BLP does not override the much more reasonable discussion at WP:SALT. Without that note, BLP is a policy and SALT isn't, so BLP certainly does override it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The policy can't be governed by a guideline. The sentence explains what admins currently do and may do. As I said, this has been happening since I started editing here. It's supported by experienced admins on the page. It's succinct and clear. I can't say anything else about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, it's weird - you respond on my talk page, but don't do so until I copy my response from my talk page to your talk page. I'll keep doing it if you insist, but if there were just one place we could both write to, that would save my copying-pasting muscles a lot of work. :-)
Anyway, that's the entire problem. Just a few posts above you write that if someone actually followed that text as written, they would be "put right"! Surely you're not favoring adding incorrect information because it's shorter? If it's wrong, it's not at all clear. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Marsden edits

Hi - Can you provide further explanation on the BLP revisions on Rachel Marsden? I was trepidatious about making any edits to this article given its contentious nature and recent protection. I cited my source but the edits were entirely reverted without explanation. I'd like to learn where I may have overstepped. Canuckle 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Just passing by spreading some cheer--Dakota
Just passing by spreading some cheer--Dakota


[edit] Image:TurlingtonPETA.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TurlingtonPETA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket Talk 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP discussion

Hey. I don't know why you're coming after me all of the sudden here, but I don't hold any "extreme views," and I don't need the continual attacks from you on this. It's unnecessary - I'm not assuming anything vile or poor about what you're doing, I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is uncalled for. What the hell, Slim? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creatin-evolution talk page

The Creation-evolution controversy article is locked, per your action, and while we were having a discussion on it (after a fishing expidition to find out if I was a sockpuppet was declined), admin FeloniousMonk unilaterally moved an active discussion on the disputed content to sub talk page, even though there was headway being made. Since this effectively killed the efforts being made to resolve the content dispute by marginalizing it, you might as well unblock the article pending the results of their next attempt at wikilawyering (an RFC, as proposed by admin FeloniousMonk. I do not plan to edit the article for 24 hours, and will resume discussing and adding the disputed content (some other editors want to add at least two sentences) after FeloniousMonk gets the RFC he is lobbying for. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 06:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:100,000e

Template:100,000e has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — JPG-GR 08:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremiah Duggan Story

After more reflection, I am convinced that it is appropriate to use the term "conspiracy theory" in translating Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben - Vier Jahre nach dem Selbstmord von Jeremiah Duggan findet die Mordverschwörung immer neue Anhänger, aber keine Beweise. The context makes it appropriate. So I think this should go in the articles. I thought I would see if you have any further thoughts on it. --Masai warrior 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for responding. --Masai warrior 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage design

I like it... reminds me of mine - now to figure out if you copied off Riana, or if Riana copied off you, or neither :) I assure you, though, I didn't copy the Picture of the Week from you :)Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 18:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Holocaust and related articles

I just wanted to say your dedication to these articles today and yesterday is inspiring i see you have been putting a lot of work into these just wanted to thank and congratulate youShimonnyman 06:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcomeShimonnyman 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust definition

reckon it would flow with the use of the term changing over time. It goes through it chronologically through to the seventies, and then doesn't state todays understanding. Perhaps a see-below type phrase for flow. Alexsanderson83 06:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Rhod Sharp, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alan 12:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

The user you blocked (User:Coolman7.0.00) has been created by User:Mstare88>>check the logs..Cheers..--Cometstyles 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Mstare88 has posted on my page a few times. Seemed to be a child, and not a particularly serious encyclopaedia writer, but not abusive in any way. Oh, and thanks for the revert, Slim. ElinorD (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Cometstyles, and you're welcome, Elinor. It must have been what passes for a joke around here. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

Dude, you are making hundreds of edits a day for Holocaust article and every day you delete facts about Bosniak victims. You are an administrator, but dude, I think both of us can agree that this is not your personal page. There is no reason to delete facts. If this continues, I will report you to the administrator for vandalism. The Holocaust article is too important to ignore when it comes to people who suffered under nazi fascists. Bosniak 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Duuuuuude. Ignore Bosniak, you are doing a great job on the Holocaust, it is a world better than what it was before you began editing it. --Hayden5650 11:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

To SlimVirgin, for your tireless and selfless dedication and effort in greatly improving the Holocaust and related entries, I thank you for all of us, and hereby award you the Holocaust Memorial Star. Those who cannot remember the past... Crum375 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, SlimVirgin. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:SlimVirgin/archive29. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

You are very welcome. ;^) Crum375 02:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nice Page

How did you make your page so cool? Please help me make my page as nice as yours!!!Chris 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Reversions by Antaeus Feldspar

I am reporting the frequent and numerious POV reversions by Antaeus Feldspar to the James Guckert/Jeff Gannon article. He claims that I make POV reversions, so to humor him, I have very studiously removed anything that is POV, and even documented the information. He continues to revert as soon as I make the edit. Can you help with this problem, please? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdth (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thank You

Thanks for stepping in on the NOR Talk Page. Policy changes like that deserve as much input by admin as possible and I was glad to see that you came to voice your say. It tends to get out of hand (angry mastodons) when admin aren't present. SanchiTachi 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

I noticed that you had reverted the NPA policy to the post-17 April version. The MONGO case has created quite a bit of heated debate over the project- and projecttalk-spaces for a coupe of months now. I have been attempting informal mediation at NPA to quell the edit wars, page protection requests and disputed-section tags.

I am not reverting your change at this time; I have no desire to give the appearance of contributing to the very edit war I hope to stop. However, I would like to note that ArbCom member Matt Brown, over the mailing list, confirmed that ArbCom does not intend to have its rulings represent policy per se.[10] He also stated that "six Arbitrators considered not linking to attack sites as already covered by de facto policy". The version of NPA I had recently put in place differs in only minor ways from the policy that was in place at that time, and has been received as acceptable by at least several of the principles in the active debate, on both sides, including those who had been the most aggressive about rejecting other options.

I feel that, regardless of the separate practice of ArbCom enforcement, stiving for relative stability in policy pages should be a strong motivation for the community. Is this decision one that you are willing to give further consideration to? Serpent's Choice 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion Issues; Brent Corrigan article

Great, so you locked the page from editing DIRECTLY AFTER the incorrect reversion was made. If you are going to do this, wouldn't it be great if you could provide an explanation for that behavior on the talk pages of those who are doing the reverting, rather than simply locking it AFTER the BPL issues are restored to the page? --Julien Deveraux 06:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romani people and Holocaust

Thanks for the rewrite of the holocaust section to reflect the plight of the Roma from a neutral position, it's a great improvement. I was wondering if you, as an administrator, could give some advice on the Romani People entry.

We have permission to use a photo by Vasilis Artikos seen here as our main photo. However, the photo keeps getting deleted by a well-meaning admin presumably concerned about copyright. I assume we've been getting our copyright tags wrong... could you offer some help?

Also, we've had some difficulties with vandalism, with entire sections being deleted without discussion on a regular basis. If you look at the history for that page, you might recognise the culprit. Any advice?

Thanks Dinlo juk 09:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that... the section on medical experiments is an excellent addition, albeit harrowing. I certainly appreciate the work.
As to the photo, I see the reasoning behind the ruling, I think it's possibly too much to ask of the photographer. I will think about it.
Thanks Dinlo juk 11:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Trude Weiss-Rosmarin

Hi Slim, can you please help me with the lead sentence. I am trying to avoid "German-Jewish writer" in the lead sentence as per all the other ladies in the template Jewish feminism. Thanks! --Tom 13:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Holocaust

Ok, I'll leave the quotation tags alone. However, should I replaces the :''Further information: tags with {{further}}? {Slash-|-Talk} 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible libelous article

Hi SlimVirgin, please take a look at the way the article about Rabbi Milton Balkany has been written by David Spart (talk · contribs) (who tends to write in a provocative way about Lubavitch). I am concerned that the Milton Balkany article may violate WP:LIBEL and open up a slew of problems. What do you think? Thanks for taking the time. (P.S. I love your new icons and logos!) IZAK 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4U

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/9/1530/79875 Zeq 10:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of south east european jews

Why are you returning WP:VANITY and WP:NOTABILITY-violating names to this list? And why is everyone reverting me without an explanation??? 83.238.44.49 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A "stable" version of WP:NPA?

Is that what you would call this[11]? I wouldn't.--Mantanmoreland 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Corrigan article

Uh, so how long will this article stay locked, and is it just locked for me? --Julien Deveraux 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC) That comment had nothing to do with the article. It was in reference to your veiled accusations on the 3RR page. It doesn't belong in the article: hence, I won't put it in the article :P. Jav43 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] warring?

Are you just edit warring for the sake of edit warring? I rewrote the lead of Babi Yar so that the massacre was mentioned first, not somewhere in the 3rd paragraph. And you reverted me? Jd2718 12:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArticleHistory

SV, there is no need to duplicate review tags on Talk:Martin Luther. The main point of {{ArticleHistory}} is to reduce talk page clutter by having all this info available in one template. All review events are linked there, including the ancient failed FAC. Could you explain why it is essential to have this listed twice? Gimmetrow 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any other way to provide this notice about the employee situation? It's not really evident that's the purpose of the FACfailed template. With ArticleHistory you can choose which type of review failure you wish displayed as text, either DGA or FFAC in this case. Would that help? Having the extra template defeats the main point of ArticleHistory and would mess up the bot which maintains this. Gimmetrow 19:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
My objection to having the template repeated is that it is a repetition serving no apparent purpose. If you wish to draw attention to this employee situation, the failed FAC template doesn't identify this issue in any way I can tell. Gimmetrow 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I know it was mentioned during the FAC. My point is that simply having the FACfailed template doesn't announce anything about this, and the former FAC discussion is linked in ArticleHistory just as well. Still, if if the repetition is only meant to be temporary, I'll leave it for now. Gimmetrow 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taliban

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I didn't remove the image of the public execution. It remains in the Ideology section where I put it; since there is no longer room for it with the added infobox; it being the only image illustrating the ideology section should suit your purposes quite well. I "continue to edit the version of the lead inserted by the Taliban supporters"? You are again incorrect; if you object to content that is in the article at present, then edit it: don't criticise me for actually doing something to improve the quality of the article, rather than simply using it as a mouthpiece for my own political propaganda. Finally, I said I supported you in covering the Taliban's treatment of women in more detail in the article, as long as this was done appropriately. I'm afraid your "thought experiment" demonstrated that your primary concern was the number of words and this is how you set about editing the lead: placing your subject of interest in primary position, with no added content, and then puffing it up with as much pointless fluff as possible. The lead should be succinct, not a demonstration of endless verbosity in the pursuit of partisan periphrasis. Please put your efforts into improving the article, rather than questioning my motives. Thanks again. Marshall 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the section to the end so it made sense in the context. I didn't bother reading anything in detail because I was only there to change the infobox. Marshall 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What's your objection to infoboxes? I don't understand what could possibly be wrong with them; they're accepted form across Wikipedia. Once again I really object to being painted as some form of Taliban-sympathising bigot simply because I don't see the inclusion of the image of a woman's head being blown off as a requisite component of an introduction to them. There's something deeply morbid, not to mention manipulative, about insisting on it's use in the intro. It's meaning can and has been easily replaced with a few simple words, so it serves no more purpose than to push for some form of visceral reaction. This is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia.
If you think you see a contradiction in opposing its use in the lead but not in the article body then allow me to clarify for you preemptively: the image illustrates the article body. In contrast in the lead you want this image to replace an infobox, in short you want it to replace content. Its use for illustration is acceptable, but never at the expense of content, and not to push a political point of view. Hope this helps. Marshall 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I already dealt with that, as I wrote above: "I moved the section to the end so it made sense in the context. I didn't bother reading anything in detail because I was only there to change the infobox." Are you saying that I deliberately retained that ludicrous sentence because I'm some kind of closet Taliban? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, so you must just be throwing insults. Nevertheless, while you were doing that I edited a version of the lead that I think is more acceptable. Please don't criticise me if somewhere in the article there is something else that you object to that I had absolutely nothing to do with. What do you think of it? Marshall 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I changed it was because the previous version had no mention of the Taliban's human rights record in general. Your version suggests they only mistreated women. That they only flogged and executed women in public. None of this is the case. Please be open to other people's input as I have tried to do. Marshall 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it's the Pashto plural form of an arabic word perhaps...? I think you'll find you've got this the wrong way round. I did read the page, a long time ago, when I was a lot more active on Wikipedia. I noticed a glaring ommission from the page, that of an infobox, and added it. Replacing an image of a woman being shot in the head. That is all I did. It's you who sought me out to be the subject of your assorted accusations and insults. I'm not supporting anyone, I'm just trying to make some good edits and I'm truly sorry that when I stumbled across a better infobox for the article I had a momentary lapse and didn't check what version of the article was currently in use. However apart from that, I don't see what the problem with my edits is? Marshall 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Sorry, I didn't know 3RR counted with unrelated disputes in the same article. I was going to leave it at this point anyway. Did you have a look at my earlier rejigging of the lead? I was wondering if it was OK by you. I was about to cite the Encarta article on the Taliban for the "Pashtun-dominated" point if I could get in before Birdazi reverted again. I won't bother now. I'm sorry if there was any confusion earlier. Thanks again for the warning about 3RR. Marshall 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I think you'll find my last edit to that article was four minutes before you warned me. So, unless I'm from the future, you're wrong. Marshall 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmm. I explained the misunderstanding on my part, let's get over how lucky I am. Could've been worth checking timings before accusing me of not listening. Edit summary reverting me had my edit as vandalism. I thought that bad form so reverted, would've left it otherwise; should've left it anyway. Hands up, it's a fair cop. Trying to reach resolution: I've asked a question at the Pashto language talk page and am discussing the dispute with Birdazi. If you look at my talk page, I think there's a misunderstanding relating to this. Marshall 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding CN

Please note the historical examples that are not all inclusive I have left on the talk page. Thanks, Navou 01:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Also as far as your request for me to not interfere with discussion, I have not reverted the undoing of the closure, but I will continue to close discussions that I feel are appropiate to close. I may make mistakes, but I try all my contributions in good faith. Very respectfully, Navou 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to link them, here. Your response, if you like, is welcome. Cheers, Navou 02:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:SHAClogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SHAClogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)