User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 23

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

Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp

I've posted on the relevant pages a request for any further comments before the rewrite on Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp goes live. I don't want to rush things, I just want to be clear as to whether there are any outstanding points, and if so, what they are. Please put any comments on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/temp. I know some days ago you still had a couple of reservations, but I don't know whether the more recent tweaks have addressed them. If you do have further comments, please add them. Kind regards, Jon jguk 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against jews vs. Template:User against scientology

Okay, I am at a loss. Despite the title of the first one it says "This user is vehemently against Judaism." not against Jews... it mirrors the text of the latter. I am bothered because it seems that we (some) have gotten into the business of judging the merits of a religion. I couldn't care less about Scientology but there is no reason that something for Scientology should be kept while we have to speedy something for another religion. As you can tell by my putting the latter on TfD I don't want either of them... but, we can't speedy one and not the other. You know, Islam is a religion of moon God worshippers and as low as Scientology... so we can have "this user is vehemently against Islam" ~_~ There is no line and we aren't going to make one. That would be completely unreasonable. Please, bring some sanity back into this all for me. gren グレン 12:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Gren, if Wikipedia were a Scientology project, the Template:User against scientology template would be deleted, but Wikipedia is a Jewish project, so Template:User against jews is the one that gets the axe. Always keep in mind who you're working for. --لæmäļ al diη 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I notice you're in a slight argument with NullC/Gmaxwell. Just popping by to remind you that it's better not to use rollback for cases that are not vandalism. Cheers, and hopefully you two can sort out your problems peacefully. NSLE _(T+C) 09:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay?

Sarah, are you okay? You seem stressed to me, reverting a lot of edits... I think you should probably stop editing for a bit, and maybe focus on something else? I dunno. But it seems like you need a little stress relief. Drop me a line if I can help. Thanks!--Sean|Black 11:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Year article links

Phase1 just mentioned to me that you argued that without linking the month and day to a specific date, the link to the year was pointless and discouraged me from adding such links. I see where you're coming from, I just worked with some articles around the 1820s - there are about 2000 links to each of them, hinting to a high popularity. I was really amazed that I could perceive hardly any ripple effects from my changes. (For other articles, a change sometimes triggers other changes because a page appears on someone's radar or because someone can elaborate on what I wrote.) So the assumption that these links indicate popularity appears to be wrong. However, I still regard these links as useful - I, for one, often visit a year article to check if a historic event is listed, and to see what else happened that year. (I'm actually not really sure how the month/day - year link works. There seems to be some intelligence behind it.) Could you please clarify what you meant? Thanks, Common Man 11:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - found pertinent discussion: [2] Common Man 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The ideal Wikipedian

A barnstar for the ideal Wikipedian. Thanks for all your good work. You don't know how appreciated you are. [[Sam Korn]] 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving articles on afd

If you move an article that's on afd, please make sure that it still points at the discussion instead of a redlink; this helps the discussion be found if you stumble across the article (or actually wrote it), instead of just reading afd. You can do this either by making a redirect (as I've done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laboratory animal suppliers in the United Kingdom), or by editing the link in the afd notice. —Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Help or mediation for Turkish people article

Hello. I was just wondering if you mediate or something with regards to the Turkish people page. User:Innana seems to want to promote a picture with non-Turks as Turks for her own reasons. In her view Roxelana and Rumi were ethnic Turks. I've given evidence to the contrary without any reciprocal or comparable evidence of any academic nature. If I'm wrong on this, I'll back off then, but I think it's absurd to make a mockery of these people pages for one's own nationalist agenda. I've worked on enough of these articles to show that I make attempts at being as neutral as possible, but feel free to give us your input. Thanks. Tombseye 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for my first barnstar. When I archive the next time it is going on my user page. I sent you this image because it has purple hues, hope you like it.Thanks again.--Dakota ~ ε 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A Note

Just so that you are aware, not one but two editors appear to have stripped off the comments of another person from your talk page, and at least one of them is a user with strong pro-Islam POV habits. [3][4]

I have replaced the entry on talk:Islamist Terrorism as I feel it is relevant to the situation there and its deletion was a violation of Wikipedia policies on deleting the comments of others, but I am not doing it here. You can replace it or leave it deleted as you wish, it is your talk page. Queeran

The user messaged me back: [5]. Also, the user claims to be a member of the "Counter-vandalism unit". Please advise. Queeran

You have mail

I've been to washington. :-) Kim Bruning 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image_talk:Kamelia_shojaee.jpg

As I wrote earlier to you today... I'm thrilled to hear you made progress on getting permissions for the image. Please forward their complete email (with headers if you can) to permissions@wikimedia.org. This is an alias created exactly for the purpose, and it's totally normal for people to forward their copyright grants emails there where they can be kept in the foundations files. By doing this we'll be able to get closure on the matter, and once it's all clear and proper then I vow to deal with people who would nag you about the image in the future (although I doubt anyone will... all anyone wants is this taken care of corectly). I'm sorry this has been so stressful on you, it has been very stressful on me too. Thank you, in advance, for your help in ending this... --Gmaxwell 06:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to include the headers if you actually have the email, so that Wikimedia know you didn't just write it yourself. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your attention is requested here. --Gmaxwell 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

your user page

Yes it is. Beautiful New Mexico. Sent you one BTW.--Dakota ~ ε 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Limited administrators

I have created this policy proposal because of my recent observations about admin and community issues. Increasing vandalism and increasing admin disputes are not good. Just, see what you think and maybe tell others? I have no idea if anyone will like support this idea or if there is anything similar out there that I haven't seen besides Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges (I looked through the policy proposal cat and saw nothing). Just testing the waters. gren グレン ^? 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you orient me?

... What are the next steps to take a proposed guideline to the larger community for endorsement? I am referring to Wikipedia:Biographies of living people and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia that have been worked on for a while and are quite stable. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thought you would find this funny, Slim

From RfP:

Islamist Terrorism (talk · history · watch)

The page has been semi-protected by an islamist sympathist admin to aid her islamist friends in a content dispute; said friends with one exception have all uniformly vanished from the article's talk page since. This is clearly wielding admin powers to gain an upper hand in content disputes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.248.19.49 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Yeah. lol --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Email

An email for you Slim. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Curious

I'm curious why you oppose Jdforrester for arbcom - I usually agree with your judgment, so it's a striking point of disagreement. :) Phil Sandifer 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use block

Thanks for the e-mail regarding your unblocking of User:Sansvoix. It was good of you to let me know, but I'm still rather disappointed you did this, especially after your posts on AN re. 'unblocking'. I was online at the tme and we could have discussed this. I will restore the block - please feel free to take it to ANI if you still disagree - I'll abide by consensus. Whatever the history of this, this user had previosly been warned about FU - and clearly then set up the userpage to display a FU tagged image. I blocked him, and indicated (as is my policy is such cases) that I would unblock immediately if s/he indicated a willingness to comply with our policy (that offer still stands). All I got was a Canadian legal opinion.

It seems to me that this is getting caught up in some sort of feud between you and Gmaxwell - I have no wish to get involved in that. I neither judge the rights and wrongs of the policy - nor take a view on the status of the images. My interpretation is, that if an image is marked as 'fair use', it is not to be on the userpage. Contest the policy, dispute the tag, if you want, but until then abide by policy. I hope this clears things up. --Doc ^ask? 10:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please don't leave! I note that there has been some concern expressed in a few places about the ways in which WP policies can be used to bludgeon excellent contributors by those who have taken a dislike to them. If I recall, the point has come up around WP:V, for instance, and this whole WP:FUC could be described as another instance of the same thing. What do you think would be useful right now? Jkelly 19:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment that may be applicable in similar situations, although I wouldn't bet that it will receive a lot of attention or careful thought. It is unclear to me why Image:Kamelia_shojaee.jpg was deleted. I'll go leave a note at User talk:Zscout370 inquiring. Incidentally, I wish that I had a better memory for usernames; it is difficult for me to keep track of the roles of the different involved parties. Jkelly 20:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, just to say, I hated arguing with you. I accept your apology on my userpage, and as far as I'm concerned the matter is closed - and we all leave a little wiser. All cool and peaceful. I seem to be arguing with everyone these last few days, it started with idiots and trolls and then moved on to pathetic lame stuff with folk I respect. I'm talking a week, or perhaps longer, out to calm down and get some perspective (not really to do with this business). Perhaps you need to do likewise, but whatever you do don't leave. --Doc ^ask? 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

David Duke

Unless you already have your hands full dealing with the devotees of the "economist" Lyndon LaRouche, you may want to keep an eye a new user who wants the article on "historian" David Duke to represent "more from the pro- side." [6] This editor hasn't been disruptive so far, but his agenda is clear and thus may warant watching. 172 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Slim, please please please, if you're tempted to sign off Wikipedia for good, just take a brief Wiki-break instead. It helps. I know, people can be quite rude sometimes, but the good you're doing on Wikipedia is far more important than someone's bitterness. For your part, you've kept remarkably cool in the face of several statements which were apparently designed to make you look bad. You're to be commended for that. Warmest wishes, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ouida

Hi Sarah, did you get the clippings from The Times that I sent you on Monday? Arniep 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Iran and copyright

That is not the situation at all. As per Jimbo, we are to respect the copyrights of Iran as though they were a peer in copyright. This is for three reasons, 1) Respect for authors, 2) We want our work to be legally distributable in Iran, and 3) they could sign tomorrow and then we'd be left with the pain of cleaning it up (perhaps more important with text than images). In any case, this is not a new argument. And if SV wants to defy community consensus and Jimbo's direction thats her call... But I certainly won't sit quietly about it, even if it means I need to suffer through her taking every opportunity to accused me of great crimes.--Gmaxwell 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't ask that editors go around being rude to people about copyright, and the particular image in question is not copyrighted anyway, so it's a moot point, made even more so by the fact that it has now been deleted out of process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's trivial to reupload it if should actually be uploaded, so it is somewhat non-productive to cause a fuss over it being deleted. Can you please substantiate your claim that it isn't copyrighted? I ask because it seems highly unlikely. --Gmaxwell 21:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware of Jimbo's ruling. Arniep 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I want to move this [7] to this [8] there's no talk page with either. I am under the impression that it must be discussed first. The stub was put up by an ip on 23 Sept. 05 and there has been no expansion since. The ip has only 2 edits and they are both on the stub and nothing on it's user talk page. If you have time what are your thoughts?--Dakota ~ ε 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Enviroknot back again

Check User Extc. He picks up where Enviroknot's anon IP's left off... Yuber^(talk) 23:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and seeking input

Hi! I noticed you in the scrap in Talk:Transhumanism/Archive_3, so i thought you might be interested in what's happening re transtopianism. I'd love your input there, or advice to this newbie. Is there a wikiproject that deals with keeping crypto-racist/etc groups from advertising here? Thx for everything, "alyosha" (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Gmaxwell

Your admin status

My removal of your question was inadvertent, although I probably would have not responded to you as you have a history of simply rolling back my comments. Users who violate our community standards will be blocked for doing so, and there is nothing wrong with me telling someone they are on that path. I have never threatened to personally block someone, because I'd get in trouble for doing so because I am not an administrator on English wikipedia. At the same time, every single user I have ever requested to be blocked, has been blocked. I feel your question is an attempt to discredit my authority to take an active role in the stewardship of this project, and I would ask that you please clarify your intentions.

As far as your top complaint goes, please specify which allegations you'd like me to provide diffs for, I'd be glad to provide them. --Gmaxwell 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bring back your coments, but I feel that my reply must be kept in context. My behavior WRT block warnings has been constient with other editors, I presume you've seen the test templates? I will continue to advise users that they will be blocked it they are doing things that are block worthy. If you believe I've been factually inaccurate, I welcome you to provide an example. As far as your request, I'm still not sure what you're asking for? Would you like a diff of your inserting fair use into your userpage against policy? Or rolling back polite comments to your talkpage with the rollback button? Or reverting almost every one of my edits, which were unrelated to anything involving use and were later restored and still stand, extending several hours back from when you started arguing with me? Pick one, or name your own. As far as blocks go, I talk to a number of editors via email and IM, just as you do... I'm sorry that I cant prove that my claim about all my requested blocks being done, but I hope you don't presume I'm being dishonest. --Gmaxwell 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're making requests: The Foundation still has not recieved the email of the copyright permission which you promised. As I stated previously, I'll gladly restore the image once its clear that it's okay from a copyright perspective. --Gmaxwell 21:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi SlimVirgin. I've been reluctant to comment, because we had a slight run-in a few days ago and I worried you would see this as a continuation of that. But I've been concerned about the conflict between you and Gmaxwell and in particular that, by not speaking out, I'd be helping in allowing it to escalate. I know this started with an image dispute, but it seems now to be personal. I feel that your anger over the first issue has made you read his comments in a particularly bad light. I agree he can be a little brusque at times, but that's all in my opinion. I don't find him rude, and I have absolute faith in his good intentions. He's a good guy, who is doing some important work for the project. It's always hard to see two good contributors in conflict, and I really hope you can find a way to end this dispute. With regards -- sannse (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of his interactions, and feel that your own opinion is colouring the way you are "hearing" his comments. I appreciate your good intent, but I a very worried that your conflict with him is likely to drive him off Wikipedia - something I really would hate to see. Perhaps you would consider taking a step back from this. If Gmaxwell is out of line, I'm sure others will be keen to let him know. At the moment, this is looking like a vendetta in retaliation for the image issue. Please understand that this is not an accusation in any way, just that this is the impression it is giving. I'm sure you'll agree it is often better to leave things to someone else rather than give the appearance of conflict of interest. -- sannse (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider that I have a relationship as such with Gmaxwell, we have had only minor contact (I have had more significant contact with Mindspillage of course). But I have seen his work and been impressed with what he does for the project. You say, "All he has to do is stop attacking people and stop pretending to be an admin i.e. edit within policy and as such I'm surprised you don't support that effort", but the issue is that I don't agree that that is what he is doing. Obviously, if I did I would not be writing this. As for the issue of removing talk page comments - I honestly don't see the problem with that. I have seen wars over it before, and I have always believed it better to allow people to remove text - after all, it means they have read it. I know you have removed text from your own page [9], and I have done the same to mine (although I tend to prefer to keep it all). Anyway, this will be my last message on this. I can see that I am not likely to change your mind, but I do hope you will reconsider and take a step back. Thank you for listening. -- sannse (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Your messages to me on my talk page been encouraging unrelated users to treat me with disrespect. As such I will continue to move our thread back to your talk page, and will consider your removal of the text a sign that you do not wish to talk to me. --Gmaxwell 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please..

Be happy. You're obviously not really getting along with Greg. Can you just forget about him for a while? Do something else. Category:Cleanup by month, Special:Random, maybe? Just something other than this business with Greg. He's upset, and I just think that both of you need some time to cool off. You should make amends with him at some point, and Mindspillage and I are more than willing to help. But for now, I think it's best to keep away from him for a bit. Thanks Sarah. Your friend, Sean|Black 23:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a personal attack. Disagreements are fine but please avoid namecalling. I gather Gmaxwell would prefer to discuss the matter on your talk page, I see no reason not to accommodate that. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was interfering, I'm only trying to help. I'm sorry. I just want this nastiness to be put behind everyone. I'm sorry :(.--Sean|Black 04:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Iran and copyright 2

FYI, the U.S. does not have a copyright treaty with Iran (Iran is one of only a half-dozen countries that we don't have a treaty with), so any copyrights claimed in Iran are not enforceable in the U.S. This means that photos that are copyrighted in Iran are legally considered Public Domain in the U.S. See Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country for more. Best regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. It's a shame someone didn't mention that earlier and all this sillyness could have been avoided. Arniep 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, Zereshk tried to point it out but those involved wouldn't listen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

He also claims there is no copyright in Iran at all, and justifies violating copyright with the widespread violations there. He simply doesn't carry creditability on the matter. --Gmaxwell 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I never said "there is no copyright in Iran". Iran does have domestic copyright laws that apply to people living in Iran. However, those laws do not extend internationally, including the US (and hence WP) in particular, and vice versa, as the corroborating documents I pasted on GM's talk page (which are not there anymore) exhibit.
2. Another sidenote: As for User:Roozbeh, my dispute with him (which is the source of this dispute) was resolved ages ago. He himself in fact introduced the { { PD - Iran } } tag to alleviate concerns, and User:wikiacc also instructed me and everyone else on Talk:Iran on proper tagging for the specific photos that were being uploaded from some Iranian government sources. User:Wikiacc has been monitoring me and the Iranian pages eversince. Therefore GM's entire body of pugnacious threats against me came as a surprise as he was reviving an already resolved issue, not to mention his bellicose attitude. Theres a difference between being "bold" and being rude.--Zereshk 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure you did: This is what you provided as evidence, "It is clearly stated here in non-technical terms,", which states "There is no copyright law, so everybody uses Microsoft software freely,". Since we were discussing the legality of using the work under Iranian law as Jimbo already made it clear that we want our work to be legal there if at all possible, I can see no other interpretation of your claim. You even began your argument by pointing out the widespread copying which you saw while you were there. If you did not intend to state that Iran had no copyright law, then I misunderstood, but I hope you see how I could come to that conclusion.. --Gmaxwell 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll clarify: There are no International copyright laws observed in Iran, because it isn't obligated to uphold any. MS Windows is not made in Iran. So people dont have to observe any copyright laws about it there. But there are copyright laws for Iranians if an Iranian were to write a software in Iran. However that law does not extend to us, and anything produced in Iran (images, books, software, music) espcially by the govt, is considered as PD outside Iran. Now the JW verdict is a whole other issue, and it's irrelevant because images that I have uploaded since then have been almost entirely either self-made or properly tagged under PD-Iran. In other words, I stopped uploading stuff that was causing the dispute.--Zereshk 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat embarassed to admit that when I looked at your image contribs I looked at them in reverse order without realizing it, which combined with your text on User talk:Roozbeh which didn't make anything look resolved to me, and because you claimed "This file is in the public domain" of Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg... Well I didn't think you'd stopped claiming that copyrighted works from Iran were PD. Can you explain why you claimed that image PD? ... The mistake was mine to consider your old uploads new, but I still don't see why you made the PD comment on that image if your argument with Roozbeh was resolved. I think it would be useful in the future if you answered questions about Iranian copyright without starting with the talk of widespread infringement there, becuase it comes off as you attempting to justify copyright infringment as okay because it is common. Thanks for your clearly considered reply. --Gmaxwell 05:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Request concerning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

I'd like to ask a favour: that you help try to find a suitable principle that can be used in this RfAr case. Two things that you should read:

1. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop#Remedies

2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop#Motion by Charles Stewart concerning citations

Do you think you might be able to help with this? --- Charles Stewart 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --- Charles Stewart 05:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Postscript - Just to say that, unless you are interested anyway, don't bother mastering the RfAr, I'm just interested in what kind of wording might be useful for #2 given a person who had difficulties along the lines of #1: really, I thought of you mainly because of your work on WP:V and WP:CITE, and only peripherally because of your RfAr experience. The RfAr will take its time, but it would be great if you had some sort of suggestion by the beginning of next week. I'll say you said you might be able to think of something on the talk page. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 05:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We can fix this

Sarah, we can fix this. I know it's stressful. Can you, and I don't want to seem rude, just leave GMaxwell alone for abit? Then when you're a little less stressed, we can figure this out. Does that sound okay?--Sean|Black 23:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)