User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 19

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

Help, Please

Slim, as you know, I have made some references to and written some articles concerning ideas of Michael E. Berumen, a philosopher who is not an academic and is admitedly not well known as a philosopher, but who has nevertheless published a book on philosophy, spoken widely to various audiences on various subjects, including ethics, and is prominent in the California business community (keeping in mind he deals primarily with business ethics). He has testified before the United States Congress, among other things, which alone makes him noteworthy. I have also contributed on many other things, hereabouts, but I have openly said I wanted to find appropriate references to him...along with Gert, Hare, and some other folks that strike me as having been inadequately treated, here, prior to my arrival. I find it especially appropriate when the ideas are original to him, as they often have been. If this were the Encyclopedia Britannica with limited space, I should think differently; but it is Wikipedia...and while not unlimited...it allows for a great deal more that is potentially useful. In any case, the issue is this: a user calling himself Electric Ray {see User Talk:ElectricRay}, a newbie whom I suspect to be a sockpuppet of someone else, but that's neither here nor there...is making commments about Berumen's own credibility and motives in the article (and elsewhere in discussion/talk pages), violating NPOV, and adding original research (this was reverted by User: Logic2go, and no, I have no idea who he is). More importantly, in my view, this ElectricRay is also going around saying on several pages that I am either Berumen or a minon of his, which not only is false, it is libeling someone who is not party to these discussions, namely, Berumen himself. He needs to stop this and behave himself. Personal attacks are prohibited among anonymous users, and they are certainly off limits with real people to the extent they are not encyclopedic and represent a user's personal opinion. I have no objection to his correcting or editing anything I write on the basis of substantiating fact or on acccepted Wikipedia policy, but he should not get away with depracating the reputation of real people. He is even putting Wikipedia in jeopardy in my view. My wife originated the article on Berumen, and she and I would just as soon see it deleted altogether rather than see the subject's reputation damaged in cyberspace from the comfort of anonymity. I respect your views and history of fairness as an Administrator, and I would appreciate any assistance or counsel you can offer. Best icut4u 01:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Slim. I have recharacterized him as a writer on philosophy, as you've suggested. Perhaps that will quell some of complaints and the gratuitous name calling.icut4u

Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd

Hi Slim, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

History move if new page

Hi Slim! I've got kind of an involved case. Basically, someone created a new page Phylum with new content, but with basically the same content as Phylum (disambiguation). Afterwards, this person simply redirected Phylum (disambiguation) to Phylum. Do I need to fix anything? I.E. Do I need to merge the history of the two together or just delete the pre-redirect version of Phylum (disambiguation)? Thanks! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon RfC

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of copyrighted images

I noticed that you've used this Image:Chimp.jpg and similar images without mentioning the rationale behind fair use. I'm afraid fair use cannot be stretched to all images, just because it is linked to an article. Moreover, the image suggests that the chimp is sad like a human being which is dubious. According to Jane Goodall and other researchers, it has been well documented that the chimp expression are not akin to humans. Some like the grinning of the teeth is less out of happiness as much as anxiety/fear. Infact many aspects of primate facial emotions are still under study and primates are known to imitate humans and probably among the few in the animal kingdom to do so. So putting up such images in the template is similar to the media hype created by some to gain more visibility/publicity.

I'm afraid I'll have to delete it like others since its also copyvio. Surely you can get images of animal sufferings without resorting to using copyrighted images. The images uploaded by you in this context are neither historical nor something of exceptional quality or rare. Idleguy 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

fyi, I've read the fair use laws and the entire article. I think you should first stop removing copyvio tags from images. This issue is a bit more complicated than it seems. Firstly you have never mentioned the rationale for each image except pasting the fair use laws. Secondly, if the mere use of self assumed rare images of reduced quality is used in the articles, then I've also got other obscure photos to use in articles under "fair use". I could just reduce the image clarity and use it across them all which defeats the point of fair use. What i'm saying is, one or two uses of an image is ok, but consistently using copyrighted info isn't.

The Jane Goodall issue is not about keeping animals in cages, but was added by me to explain that you are using images that portray a likely false image of the monkey's real emotion. Monkeys have different emotional expressions from humans and that "sad monkey" isn't really sad as you think just like a hollywood monkey smile isn't a chimp really smiling but made to smile. I feel that you've just decided to cut and paste just because it furthers your personal interest and not the interest of wikipedia. A monkey when really sad seldom uses " :( " expressions. However, you want to make it look a hollywood poster or tabloid cover and persist with the issue of a "grumpy monkey" just because it somehow seems more like a human sad face. Maybe you also think that a dolphin smiles forever just because it has a smiley face?

Two things, pl. provide the rationale for each image, NOT just the fair use law and don't overuse the fair use provision. Also don't retag images that have been listed under copyvio images. Idleguy 07:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"trying to undo my work"? Pardon me, but I don't believe those images were your work. You just uploaded them. And pl. don't accuse others of vandalism when u obviously yourself remove copyvio tags, especially one that's already listed as such. You have not explained the rationale for most of your images. I think we need to understand the difference between a) rationale and b) simply mentioning the law. You have just mentioned the fair use principle (when a simple link to it would do) and have seldom mentioned any specific rationale for each image. It's about specifics v generally quoting the rule.

If the animal protection groups are happy then they should release it to the Public Domain or under GFDL. it's your statement claiming that they have released it without proof that irks me. And not all your images are from animal rights groups. Some are taken from media reports and I don't think any publisher would be "happy for them to be used" as you please.

Your argument of "Reducing image quality" is very suspicious especially in your case. None of the images are really of reduced clarity or quality. A simple glance would reveal that and image properties clearly indicate that they are EXACTLY the same quality. It shows that you also have started to lie in order to back up your claims for fair use.

Believe me I've read Jimbo Wales statements on this, but your case is turning more like a clear copyvio. I'm going to start tagging your images properly (as imagevios) unless I find some exceptions. Tx. Don't blame me, blame the law. It's an ass. Idleguy 08:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost all images uploaded by you are either not tagged or tagged as fairuse. And nearly everyone of these "fair use" image is copyright as you yourself fully know and mentioned. Images are taken from BBC, Guardian and other copyright sites. Image:BassamAbuSharif.jpg is an example taken from BBC. As per Wikipedia policy "In general, copyright exists automatically, upon publication: an author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable". Simple.

I believe it is "unfair use" and it would be fair to the original creators that we didn't abuse this loophole to the hilt. If you're using them with permission, they are not fair use but {permission} tag which is likely to result in the same fate: deletion. Idleguy 08:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And pl. stop your retagging and follow the rules. I think if you don't want the copyvio images to go, then you'd be advised not to upload such images in the future. Reverting the tags also is a case of Avoidant vandalism as per wikipedia official policy. So pl. stop the reverts. Idleguy 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Cambridge Apostles

I'd like to dispute quite a lot of the information given in the Cambridge Apostles article -- primarily because it is based on Deacon's book which is, at best, out of date and, at worst, very inaccurate.

I appreciate that Verifiability is important, but I think that readers should, at the very least, be given a caveat about the trustworthiness of the information. Unsigned by User:131.111.8.98

That email id is defunct.

I appreciate your need to contact me but that email id is now defunct. you can resend ur email to idleguyATyahoo.com (replacing AT with @)Sorry for the inconvenience. Idleguy 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Help?

Slim, would you help me keep the Berumen article which is now up for deletion? I cannot for the life of me understand this. icut4u

You asked for some info. I can't spend the whole day on this, but I would reference a few things. The Congressional testimony is referenced in the flap of his book and on the bio on the publisher's website [2], on a company website [3], and on his blog [4]. Here is a speakers notice from a business association [5]. He is mentioned in the largest business ethics journal [6]. He is on the board of a statewide security organization [7]. I checked a couple of libraries...he is in UCLA's [8]; Stanford's [9]; and the Los Angeles Public Library [10]; presumably the librarians of such world class libraries know something about what constitutes notability for their stacks and do not populate them with vanity tomes? In any case, I cannot imagine that he is not notable enough for Wikipedia. icut4u 17:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My wife heard him speak at UCI. She teaches philosophy. We both read his book. The way to verify what he says is to read is book, as with any other philosopher. It is simply the good faith policy one expects of any editor. The reference you're looking for in the journal is under books on page 16...the numbers are hard to see. I don't know about newspaper articles on the web from 93...just have to assume some things one finds in bios in several places are true? I doubt he would be speaking before an insurance audience such as the one referenced if he were not recognized for his expertise in this area, so it is not surprising that he would give expert testimony. icut4u 17:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's all I have right now, really, which is rather more substantial as a standard for some of what's in here. As far as I can see, the notability and good faith requirements (as with your edits on B Williams, which presumably were based on your reading) are the most significant factors in justifying the article itself. For links, one would be more concerned about the other issues you raised, though I don't think that is the case when his work is the actual source for the writing. Removing him as a source, when he was the source, is especially objectionable, even dishonest. Thanks. icut4u 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Berumen issue

Greetings. To grant some perspective into my motivations, please check out ElectricRay's contribution on the Help Desk, which drew me into this whole issue. I looked into it, and saw Michael E. Berumen's name added to a large number of articles; his thoughts and philosophies took up most of the article in several cases.

I have some background in philosophy, but had never heard of this person. So I decided to do some research. I failed to find any significant evidence for his notability, and certainly nothing to suggest that he should really be dominating dozens of philosophy and ethics-related articles.

Having thus confirmed ElectricRay's suspicions to my satisfaction, I removed the (to my mind) inappropriate references (explaining my removals on the Talk page for every article), and nominated Michael E. Berumen for deletion as non-notable. I strongly suspect that Icut4you is involved in a vanity crusade; I also have suspicions that User:Logic2go is a sock-or-meat puppet of his.

I do not know Logic2go. Check the ISPs with someone here who can do that. That is a scandelous assertion. And, I might be vain, but certainly not in relation to someone else. icut4u

Thanks for getting involved. The debate could certainly use a more established Wikipedian :) --Ashenai (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

content dispute on coercive monopoly

You were so helpful on the open gaming article. Do you know of anyone who could be of similar assistance on the coercive monopoly article?[11] -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am doing my best to be nice and foster a dialogue among the editors of this article, but some editors are making it needlessly difficult.[12] Personally, I'm considering just leaving this article to the wolves, but whether I do or not, I really think an admin needs to step into this. You restored sanity and civility to the open gaming article -- the coercive monopoly article needs the same kind of help. BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

bensaccount rfc meddling

The bensaccount RfC has been quiet for 6 weeks without a single comment. History is shown here. An archive is perfectly acceptable given that the entire talk page is essentially dead. If anyone wants to start a new discussion they can.

As for your behaviour as an editor, you got yourself involved with the Bensaccount RfC a day after you posted on my talk page that you could no longer assume any good faith of me. The RfC against Bensaccount had been around for a week without comment from you, and you had not been involved in any of the articles mentioned in the dispute. Once I attempted to bring Bensaccount back to resolve the dispute, you came into the RfC in an attempt to nail me for "another bad faith RfC". That was clearly harrassment. Your continued presence on that RfC is nothing more than further harrassment. If you believe the RfC is not being managed properly, then you can request an admin look at it. And no, not one of your buddy admins who do your bidding, but an admin that you don't have a history with. This is the only acceptable action at this point. You have no justification for continuing your harrassment of me on this RfC. FuelWagon 20:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbReq against Jguk

I decided to bite the bullet. Please consider supporting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a personal attack...

If you want to misconstrue the following as personal attack, then I'm not to blame.

Why can't you be honest and open and tell me this "editor" you're in talks with? Is it because you want only your side of the story to be told? First In gets "fair" justice? :( Idleguy 18:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hi. Could you take a look at my proposed way forward on the egg controversy at the veggy page and let me know if you agree? Thanks SP-KP 18:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use and all that jazz

SlimVirgin,

I've been looking over the images and I've been talking with IdleGuy about all this drama. He's probably going to nominate some of the images you've uploaded on either WP:CP or WP:PUI. He did this before, and you removed the listings and left a note on the talk page explaining why - but the correct procedure would have been to leave the images on WP:CP and list your reasons why you think they qualify as fair use. (You obviously acted in good faith, since you left a message on the talk page about it, but this mix-up is why IdleGuy listed you on WP:VIP.)

So don't remove listings or copyvio tags in the future, and things should work out better. Just leave your reasoning on the pages where he lists the images, and the community will decide on consensus. (If there's not a consensus to delete, the images will be kept.)

Thanks for all your work here, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

EKBK block

Wow, a Kafka quote- very interesting. Anyway, I'm just wondering how certain you are that EKBK is a sockpuppet. If I've done my research correctly, you think he's a sock of Zephram Stark. He's just complained at AN/I, and I was hoping I could give him a reason. Think you can help me out? I'm just worried about saying something and it turning out to be wrong.--Scimitar ^parley 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Could I chime in for a minute, as I've also been involved with the Zephram/EKBK affair? If you're wondering about the EKBK block, this thread is required reading. I'd also be happy to answer any further questions. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 19:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That clears things up wonderfully, and shows me a bit about Zephram too (my only experience with him is at Talk:George W. Bush). It's a good thing you showed me this, as I was leaning towards unblocking him if I couldn't justify the block.--Scimitar ^parley 20:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to contact me as well. Carbonite's link calls into question why I would care if SlimVirgin blocks EKBK under the guise of being my sockpuppet. My answer to that is threefold: 1) SlimVirgin has also blocked me because she claimed that I had a sockpuppet. I have never created a sockpuppet. 2) SlimVirgin and Jayjg are using tactics of blocking people and threatening to block people who disagree with them about the "terrorism" article. Together they have blocked over a dozen people. 3) It's just corrupt as hell to block someone who has done nothing wrong. --Zephram Stark 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Veggy page

Hi - I'm referring to the proposal I made under the heading "A better way forward" - SP-KP 21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

SV urgent email for you. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten

I contacted Pacific Life Company where he worked to see if I can get hold of a notice or transcript of his testimony. The internet version of congressional records doesn't go back to '93. Lexus Nexus costs a fortune to use. If I get something, can I upload an image to Wikipedia? icut4u

No permission

SlimVirgin, I'm sorry you're sorry. I've enjoyed our e-mail exchange and I hope that we can continue it, but I will not give you permission to use/post/forward anything I've written (at least not for now). It's been quite a few e-mails and I'm afraid I don't really trust you to choose what paragraphs/sentences would accurately describe the reality of the situation. Maybe if all our e-mails are made available to the Wikipedia community in an unaltered state. I'll do this - I'll respond to your latest e-mail and maybe we can (via e-mail) come to some sort of agreement as to what material is relevant in this situation. I must say that I'm disappointed that you even referred to my e-mails on the talk page; I could easily 'retaliate' by 'quoting' from your e-mails, but I feel that's a line I'm not willing to cross. Best Regards, --saxet 06:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Ali Sina

Hey, sorry... but could you check this out. Not sure would you could do but you will notice that User:OceanSplash's comments are completely uncalled for, referring to my Jihadi brothers :), haha, but more importantly it's just the endemic FFI problem resurging. See http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12838 for a new thread about it all. I'm not sure what you can do about this but... if you at least talk to people higher up let them know that good editors are put under undo stress because of this crap. gren グレン 07:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let us not forget http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11216 I know offsite problems really aren't your issue, but could you at least let me know if Jimbo and those highly involved see this kind of thing. I know Raul mentioned advertising campaigns hitting wikipedia. Thanks again. gren グレン 07:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12815&highlight=wikipedia. In fact search and there are more. :( gren グレン 07:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you SV. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not an insult. According to the Prophet of Islam: “All Muslims are brothers”. The jihadis are Muslims so they are the brothers of all other Muslims. No Muslim can dispute that unless he wants to say something against the saying of his prophet. If the Muslim editors of Wikipedia do not consider the jihadis as true Muslims, then they must denounce them. If some jihadi issues a death threat they should be the first to denounce him. What the Muslim editors of Wikipedia do instead? They try to cover up with a myriad of lame excuses. See this: This makes them accomplices of the jihadis not their enemies. All Muslims are brothers. This is what Muhammad said and no Muslim can dispute with that. The fact that Muslims disagree with each other is another issue. No two Muslims can agree on anything and that is why Shiits and Sunnis kill each other. Our problem in Wikipedia is Islamic militantism. Muslim members in this site have virtually hijacked it and try to push their twisted version of facts with force of numbers. If Wikipedia wants to keep its reputation as an unbiased source of information, religious Zealotry must end and no group should be allowed to impose its deceptive version of the facts to look good. Keep religious Zealotry out of Wikipedia and stick to facts. If facts are ugly, they must be told nonetheless. (OceanSplash 24:00 19 Oct. 2005)

Here's what you requested

It took some doing, but I got a PDF file of the testimony Berumen gave with a covering letter from the SIIA written in 93, a trade association of insurance interests. It's authenticity can be verified in their WDC office, a Mr. Geroge Pantos. [13]. Don't know if I did that right. The average college professor has not addressed a City Council, let alone Congress! Additionally, I found he gave an address at Beckman Center (very large auditorium) at UCI to several hundred people (most professors could not fill that auditorium, I can assure you,I have been there) as recently as 6-2of this year, and he has been there before; the California Club, home of business, academic, and government titans in Los Angeles "On the Triumph of Liberalism" 5-27; St Margaret's Academy on "Property Rights and Economics" on 4-26; and many, more venues, academic and otherwise, that I can provide evidence on. Most professors are lucky to fill their classrooms with people that have to be there. I have had to provide more evidence than most people, here, who simply make uncorrorborated statements accepted on good faith. Then people come up with even more requests, for example, they say he isn't in any reference material that they find acceptable (heck, I've shown a law school uses his text along side of Scalia and O'Conner's work) and expect me to prove he is, when they cannot prove that he isn't. Gosh, I simply wrote an article based on what I knew to be true. It is very tiresome and this is the very last bit I'll do on this, and only because you, Slim, asked for it. I hope you can support me. Best. icut4u

Yes, there is some indication of a server problem now. In any case, it took place before the Congressional Committee on Education and Labor Management on Nov 9, 1993 House of Representatives. Several dense pages of testimony delivered both orally and in writing. icut4u

Please note that I've already read it, linked to it in the AfD discussion, and changed my vote to Keep. My thanks to icut4u for providing the reference; it's good enough for me. :) --Ashenai (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Image

Hi , Is there any evidence that [14] is an "ambitions of contemporary Islamists to re-establish an expansionist Islamic empire." Or is no such evidence required .F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 00:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Age, etc

Of course, I think I'm very interesting; I just do not expect that view to be shared by the average 16-year-old who thinks that literature is something you have to do at school. And I don't blame them for one minute. Glad I gave you a laugh, anyway. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Issue on images still unresolved

Slim, I'm copying this message and my reply to your page for your notice.

I appreciate your inputs in Image talk:Monkey3.jpg and I agree once in a while I might sound rude (purely unintentional, since I put facts blantly). But SlimVirgin is abusing his admin power to overrule anyone.

Slim is not a "he". Given that she named herself after a Javanese princess, perhaps you could take the hint and note that she's a woman. Also, I don't think you were simply blunt. I think you were rude to Slim. I recognise it's a fine line but given that I've mentioned it to you, perhaps you'll take more care to stay on the right side of it?

I assumed that Slim was probably like a take from "Fatboy Slim" without reading up on her profile so that's why I used "he" initially instead of "she". Minor error I accept but the net is full of such examples of confusing usernames (the oriental and occidental names can confuse).

She has suggested in an email to me, that she is in talks with another editor. Now, I don't know who this other editor and i certainly don't like this secrecy. Instead of having a discussion on this, she wants to finish the matter begind closed doors. She could've atleast told me who this reputed editor was to let me have a word with him/her.

Perhaps she is seeking guidance on how she should approach you and wants that to be untainted by your input. I think that would be reasonable. I have a high regard for Slim and I don't think she would have a nefarious purpose in speaking to a third party.

Inso far as the images are concerned, I had stated to her a couple of images on one issue (animal rights) is ok, but she insists she needs to showcase the entire album provided by PETA and its assocites.

So you have a dispute. You need to recognise that you are not necessarily right! You disagree about how many images are necessary. I feel that you have to allow that your disagreement might be fuelled by your political differences as much as how you interpret the image policy.

This should could easily achieve by providing an external link to the images provided by a controversial organization.

The BUAV is not a "controversial organisation". It is a highly respected body, whose voice is listened to in all circles of British society. A viewpoint doesn't become "controversial" just because you don't share it.

Not BUAV, PETA. A look at other articles on various encyclopedias or neutral articles seem less interested in portraying what looks like "101 outrageous animal torture" photos. Actually IMAO it's more funny than sympathetic because of its overuse. If that's the effect Slim wants to have, then fine by me.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not have extreme viewpoints -

But you expect it to reflect your viewpoint.

No. The views of the majority who don't necessarily reside in the developed world.

thus I requested her to limit her fair use policy in this regard to 2-3 images which can be used across similar articles. this she refuses.

I don't see how it is any fairer to use one, two or ten images in this instance. While I agree that Slim could have taken more care to provide a rationale for using the images, I simply don't feel that your argument about how many she should have used has much weight. One factor in deciding fair use is how much of a thing you use, that's true, but it's only one factor, and obviously, each picture is a separate case to be considered as well as part of a whole.

As far as the other images, some are on personalities she claims have "agreed" to use their photos here. Unless she gets a written consent and a permission how can I believe.

First of all, you can believe Slim because you assume good faith. Perhaps you're not aware of that policy. Yes, you can ask Slim to provide evidence of that, but your assumption should be that she has in fact acquired that agreement. Harassing another editor to provide evidence to your satisfaction and insisting you won't believe them until they have do not show an assumption of good faith.

Once I pointed out that {permission} photos would be deleted anyway, she backed off and argued that it be kept on the grounds of fair use asking me to trust her.

Yes, okay. Trust her AND ask for proof.

Both of us are editing in good faith, but one of us has power and a circle of friends to back her while the other (me) relies on the hope that ppl. like you will help me out in this.

I'd urge you to rely on the issues rather than the personalities. Yes, Slim does have powerful friends, who will back her regardless, but you should still do your best to make it about the issue in question and not about her.

If she gets away with this and sets a precedence then I'm afraid there are hordes of copyviolaters straining at the leashes to bomb Wikipedia with copyrighted information.

I think that's a bit dramatic but I agree that she has to obey the rules, which exist for good reason, and shouldn't be given a pass just because she is friends with the arbcom. However, she is not a "copyviolater" trying to destroy Wikipedia. Partly, I think she simply didn't understand your problem, and that was in part a failure of your communication, and partly she has become too used to having her views echoed by her friends and doesn't handle disagreement well. So perhaps you could recognise that and be more helpful than combative? I know it's hard. I find the establishment hard to deal with sometimes. They tend to say "Wikipedia thinks this..." when they mean "My friends think this..." They forget the diversity and multiplicity of opinion that exists here and live in an echo chamber because they know they are empowered and do not need to pay any attention to that diversity to get what they want.

fyi, 70% of her images are tagged as fair use without providing a single rationale (few of them fall under the subcategories like stamp, logo etc. where it's easy to understand).

Yes. But as I noted, plain common sense would direct you to understand that fair use is being made of the photos. They are the product of a not-for-profit organisation whose goal is to educate people about animal torture. Having their material illustrate an encyclopaedia article about animal torture would clearly suit their purpose, as Slim pointed out to you, I believe. Ignoring that makes your approach seem malicious. I think Slim is in part bewildered by your making such a huge, urgent issue out of it, when the chances of legal dispute are so very small. So perhaps we could agree that Slim should provide rationales in due course, and preferably have the photos released under a suitable licence, but in the meantime there's no particular urgency to re-tag them or to insist on rapid action? Surely a commitment to act would be sufficient.

She also keeps reverting to her tags, violating all admin rules.

That's another issue. I think Slim is one of many admins who would be better off not having the powers, because they lead her into disputes of this nature, where the issue all too rapidly becomes her and not her edits, which is unfortunate.

As it stands I'm erring on the side of caution, while Slim wants to stretch the boundry of "fair use". Tx 4 ur interest in this. Idleguy 08:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that you're being very cautious, and I think caution is right, as I noted. However, I think in the case of the BUAV images in particular that they are clearly "fairly used". You have to ignore their provenance to think otherwise. I can see from your discussion with her that Slim was not very successful in communicating her point of view, because she interpreted legitimate concern over copyright for a personal attack, largely because, I think, you didn't take into account the source of the photos and their likely reaction to their being in WP. Still, I do agree that she should ask for confirmation from BUAV that they are cool with our using the photos; but I think you should lay off them (and her) so long as she has made the commitment to acquire that confirmation. (this message copied to Slim's talkpage for her notice. Grace Note 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to pester further. The first line of Wikipedia:Fair use says "You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal." Idleguy 04:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't block indiscriminately

Slim: Recently you blocked a series of IP addresses to deal with the "Disruptive Apartheid editor". I'm not him, but I got blocked when you did that. I've dealt with this issue before (with another administrator), and it seems that the Apartheid editor uses SBC as his Internet provider ... along with 5 million other people. So I would appreciate it if you would avoid blocking large numbers of IP addresses to deal with a single individual -- if you do that, you are going to catch legitimate editors too. --Metropolitan90 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting

By now you should've been able to verify the quotation on the talk page and see that I was not using LaRouche material in the physical economics article. I'd like to be able to check up on your progress. Cognition 03:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

I think a bit of mediation will be helpful here . I am not saying that the version written by me or Zora is perfect , but the version that is being pushed by Zeno has been copy pasted from anti Islam site , & is full of baseless assumptions & lies (compare tafsir Ibn Kathir to the claim about him from Muslimhope site) . Secondly he is not willing to accept that DQ might be somebody other than Alex . He is also pushing "flat earth theory" base on the very same assumptions . He is not willing to give importance to Muslim scholars , rather he keeps on reverting the article to Orientalist claims . I am not saying that Orientalist claims shouldnt be stated , but the whole article shouldnt be based on their claims . I mean there are countless theories about Jesus made by athiests ( his being born of Virgin Mary ) , do we write the whole JESUS article from their POV .F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 04:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey SV

Can you voice your opinion here and here (I added a VfD tag to see if it is even encyclopedic). I really need help because the two article that I am proud of are in dire need, thanks. I am really starting to hate WIkipedia. Molotov (talk)
04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In cogs neato

Hi, Sorry, am of the NYC to do two lectures at the CUNY Graduate Center public forum series. WIll be back Monday. Will read LaRouche stuff then. Yum.--Cberlet 12:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

BCE 2

Sarah

This is a dispute which has been discussed many times, and we already have the community view on the arguments that have recently been put forward. Regardless of that point, I have, by a very small number of WPians been subject to extremely offensive abuse, as well as being deliberately harrassed by an anonymous by prolific WPian who is most probably already an admin who has chosen to approach this with a sockpuppet account. Additionally, Fred has far from helped the situation by arguing that the ArbCom effectively were endorsing Slrubenstein's proposal (which was somewhat ironic since within the hour Slrubenstein, clearly not having read Fred's comment, noted that no-one would say that WP should follow his original proposal (presumably because it has been rejected by the community beforehand)). I fully appreciate that you have not been involved in the nastiness directed at me, and others who have disagreed with the most forceful proponents of what you agree with, but that does not diminish that it has happened.

It's really time all this "against"ness and "contra"ness disappeared. I would far rather a clear direction as to what approach we should take was made - unfortunately Fred's contribution has made this impossible. Last time I disappeared, without presenting evidence of some pretty offensive and vile comments a couple of WPians directed at me. This time I will stay and present full evidence in my corner. Yourself, and other WPians who have acted purely civilly and in good faith (regardless of whether they agree with me or not) will only slightly be caught up in this. Others who have not will find myself not so meek this time. I'm sure you will agree with me that it is wholly unacceptable to accuse other WPians of engaging in "holy wars" or of downright lying, and of using sockpuppets to make edits purely to avoid responsibility for their actions. It is for this reason that suggesting this case is against me and not against Humus and Sortan (and I will include Fred soon for making a perverse and knowingly disruptive commentg) is wrong.

It's a shame that we couldn't just have a straightforward clarification - that was what I was suggesting to everyone. Unfortunately others prefer a war. I wish it wasn't the case. The WPians preferring war come to it with dirty hands - I was defending the ArbCom's decision (and I have many edits that show this). If I was wrong in my interpretation, and I do not believe at all that I was, then a mere clarification was enough. Others chose war - I tried to avoid it, but unfortunately it seems I have failed.

As far as the direct point goes, I have tried all along to get an amicable agreement - let's stop this anti-this and anti-that and get back to harmonious editing. Kind regards, jguk 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

SV, I have already offered many an olive branch to HS et al. Indeed, you will recall that I suggested that they approach ArbCom members for a clarification of what WP policy is, and have made it quite clear that I have every intention of abiding by WP policy. Unfortunately, and I wish they had not, they chose to go to war rather than look for an amicable conclusion when such an option was made available to them. Fred's comment (which was essentially to state that Steven Rubenstein's proposal was WP policy) was both inopportune and took away a last chance of this whole thing getting very nasty.

Humus sapiens in particular has made numerous hurtful personal attacks on me and has shown no sign of flexibility whatsoever. Last time I went away and did not defend myself against SouthernComfort. This time I will stay and fight my corner. For my part I will try to minimise the involvement of those who want to keep a wide berth - but I will mention them when necessary (for example, I have not been alone in trying to get HS to see sense, and I don't intend to leave the impression that it is just one user (me) against many - especially when one is a sockpuppet).

It's all very regrettable, I'd like the whole thing to be over - but that does not mean that I will not defend myself and go away. All the best, jguk 12:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Haha, thanks. Well, I doubt you read freestylefrappe's talk page but when he first approached me I had doubts because I figured my work on the Islam-related pages would get me some opposes and I don't really need admin to do good work. His response was, "I dont entirely understand your reluctance...at the very least, it would generate discussion". So, I figured it would generate discussion and it couldn't be all bad. So, I was really surprised when not many of the regular editors on the Islam-related pages had voted, especially the ones I tend to disagree with more. It just kind of seemed unfair. I'm more worried about someone voting oppose becuase I put that on the talk page thinking it's me advertising :D --gren グレン 12:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hi ... I just thought I'd ask whether you'd been able to give some thought to my proposal at the talk page, and whether you are willing to sign up to it? SP-KP 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Pikachu2.gif

I've deleted the above picture, since it's fair use, and was only being used on your user pages and various Requests for Adminship. Ral315 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The "party hard" image on your page is also marked for deletion... just so you know. ~~ N (t/c) 19:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)