User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 27

User:Judah haNasi vs. Judah haNasi

Hi SlimVirgin: Hope you had a good Yom Tov! Please see User talk:Judah haNasi#Problem with your Judah haNasi user name and add your comments. Thank you. IZAK 05:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Vincent Cannistraro

Why have you deleted half the bio? What are you talking about "unsource claims" every claim has a source and every footnote has the full quote right there for you to read. Cannistraro himself refused to enter into any mediation, thereby acknowledging that what I was writing was factually correct. I've been having a huge edit war with him and finally I win, and now suddenly you're attacking my claims too. Why? What have I done to deserve this? Ryan4^Talk 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Primitive Yahwism

• I nominated this article for AfD. I chose not to use speedy because of the obvious sensitive nature of the topic, though I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. pm_shef 20:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Humus_sapiens

It's interesting how we have found essentially the same words at the same time [2][3]. I decided not to change anything in my vote despite the edit conflict. Let others think that I stole your thoughts and your words. Pecher ^Talk 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

... you're welcome to e-mail me about them, using the link on my user page

Christ no, don't say that! Since March 28th, Sarfatti has flooded my personal inbox with no less than 178 e-mail messages, with content ranging from the abusive to the bat-shit insane. Ask Jimbo about that, whom Jack cc's on all of them. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

E-mail for you, by the way

Thanks. I can't check it remotely, so it'll wait til I get home. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr/vandalism

Hi -- sorry, I'm not quite sure of the protocol (re Stubhub 3RR). Should I not revert in the future now I've opened this channel, or how does it go? Ben-w 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha -- thanks! Ben-w 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:EKN

They deleted the warning from their page which I restored, it seems there is possibly something suspicious going on [4], [5]. Arniep 01:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact they have deleted many other warnings [6], [7], [8]. Arniep 01:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This edit shows their intentions [9]. With the amount of warnings they have had surely it should be a perma block (the message from the "friend" suggests they are both banned users). Arniep 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[10], [11], [12], [13]. Arniep 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim this guy is a blatant vandal/troll who is obviously intent on causing mischief, see the latest message on his talk User_talk:EKN#Excuse_me.3F and just about every other of their edits

[14] [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Arniep 17:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken this to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:EKN. Arniep 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stubhub

Hi-- (re Stubhub 3RR). Ben-w has violated the 3RR.

Ok

Ok, I won’t sockpuppet anymore, but why can’t I delete the warning? It doesn’t look really nice to people who view my talk page. EKN 02:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

• I sockpuppeted on the nic “MansaMusa.” I used it to vote on a candidate feature picture. I’m sorry, and I promise that won’t happen anymore. EKN 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

• • No that’s the only one. Is there any way I can transfer I my logos and comments on my talk page to a new user and have this one canceled? I don’t particularly like the name “EKN.”EKN 02:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

A little help needed

I don't think this is good, really [20] but don't know who it is for block criteria.--Dakota ~ 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing an encyclopedia

Do you have any idea how we should cite an encyclopedia article which is signed by its author? We have {{Citeencyclopedia}} template, but it assumes that the article is unsigned. My Keys for Writers by Ann Raimes is also silent on that matter. Many thanks, Pecher ^Talk 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How would you then write a note without giving the full citation: Doe (2006)? Pecher ^Talk 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have several articles from the same encyclopedia among which you must distinguish by naming the articles in question, how would you do it: Encyclopedia Britannica, "Israel" (2006)? Pecher ^Talk 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I knew that only you could help me out :)) Pecher ^Talk 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas

Just what is going on here? I have explained on the talk page why the version you wish to revert to is incorrect, and all you do is keep blindly reverting without explanation (well, this time I see you have added some unhelpful remakrs which do not address any of the substantive points). Is this some kind of personal thing? Palmiro | Talk 23:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean?

Grace Note says that original Research policies are violated everywhere when someone is added to an ethnicity list who is not described as exactly that (i.e. "Greek" or "Greek Americans". Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then you're engaging in Original Research by making that decision on the Jewish lists. Your whole argument is supposed to be that we are claiming something that reliable sources don't, i.e. that a person is Irish-Ameican, Jewish, Greek-American, etc. by placing them on a list. This is either true for all the lists or it isn't true at all. You can't just say that originaly research can apply to one group in particular. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's clear to you that if it's a violation of policy on the Jewish lists, it is so everywhere else. My main problem with all of this has been, as you may or may not know, that special, restrictive standards are applied to the Jewish lists that are not applied anywhere else. Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean it's not a policy violation? Isn't that what you've been saying from the get-ago? That's certainly what Grace Note says, that putting people on lists of "foos" - without them being described as "foos" - is a violation of Original Research. I thought that was your whole point. I'm checking my e-mail. Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you sent me an e-mail, did you do it through the mikell222 address? Because I haven't gotten anything there. Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it must be slow then. Is the e-mail all about convincing me to drop the subject completely or something like that? Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Three times? Are you sure? I really haven't gotten anything. Are you sure you're e-mailing mikell222@hotmail.com? Mad Jack O'Lantern 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just created a new e-mail address, madjacke@hotmail.com . Maybe that would help? Though I really have no idea why the other one isn't receiving your messages, it's certainly received other messages through the past couple of hours. Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got it over at the original address. Not sure what could be wrong with the preferences... Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ZS

Hi Slim, can you ban Zephram's latest sockpuppet Postponed Longhorn (talk · contribs). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I noticed you unblocked User:Pole star? Was he not Zephram? I think Jayjg said he was [21]. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to let you know. Better double-check with Jayjg. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

infidel

Pecher has blanket reverted my additions to Infidel complaining that they were "illiterate and unsourced edits"[22]. However, while they were well sourced via the external links (Maybe should be renamed External references) he may have a point in relation to my gramma' and diction, so, was wondering if you could improve on it please?!--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

I don't understand your point. You were the one who had not particpated in the talk page discussion. I had participated in it at length. Palmiro | Talk 11:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, if you so wish. As I didn't know whether you had the article watchlisted, it seemed more sensible to post here. Palmiro | Talk 11:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)