User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 28

Courtesy of Bishonen

Please leave comments about my edits to articles, or responses to posts I've left on article talk pages, on those talk pages. Any such comments may be moved or deleted. Many thanks.

Quickly doing a partial undeletion

Slim, I was just about to delete something when I saw that you had. Do you know that there's a quick way of checking the thousands of boxes so that you can just uncheck the two or three that you don't want to restore? I discovered it only yesterday, having spent hours at the Easter weekend resortoring pages, at least one of which had thousands of versions. You can see it here. It just takes five seconds. I'm not sure if it would be wise for me to jump in and restore something that you may be in the middle of restoring, but if you see this in the meantime, let me know. Otherwise, it may be useful to know for another occasion. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! It's incredibly quick and easy — it makes me groan to think I didn't know about it when I was doing the Christianity talk page a few weeks ago! AnnH ♫ 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had given the proper link, but now I see that I had only linked to the noticeboard, not the section. I've corrected it now. Basically, it's the information that you get when you go to your watchlist, then to "display and edit the complete list", then to a link on how to check all boxes. I wasn't sure at first how to create a "favourite" without being on an actual website and adding it to my favourites. But eventually, I added a website that had nothing to do with anything to my favourites, and gave it the false name "Check all boxes", and then went to my favourites menu, right-clicked the link, went to "properties", and pasted the code in instead of the existing address. It just took me a few seconds to restore the remaining 12,000 versions. AnnH ♫ 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what a monobook is, and the reason I've never installed any of the code thingies that I read about on Wikipedia pages is that they sound so complicated. I just, as I said, added a website to my "Favourites", giving it the name "Check all boxes". Then I edited the address location for that particular link in my favourites menu. It's odd, because it's not a web address, and when I'm at the "undelete this page" place, and scroll down to that link in my "favourites", I don't get taken to another website, and the URL in the address bar doesn't change. I just see that two seconds later, all the boxes are checked, and then I uncheck the few that I don't want. I thought it would be really complcated, but in fact, it's incredibly simple! AnnH ♫ 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was just spying on you ;-) to see if you were still online after I sent my last message, and I saw your post to Voice of All. I think the one I was thinking of isn't the same. The one I'm using is this one. I think I saw Voice of All's one, and it sounded far too complicated! :-) AnnH ♫ 20:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have the Voice of All script, you don't need the other one, presumably. When I sent you that first message, I hadn't tried the other one out on undeletion. I did a partial resoration of a large page yesterday, but did it by restoring the offending version and moving it to another page, deleting the other page, going back to the original page, and restoring all the good versions. But then I managed to install the Check all boxes thing from the link on my "display the complete watchlist". I played with that for a while. Then I went to Amazon.com, and looked at a book. At the bottom of the page, they have boxes to check for other books in that category — biography, 19th century, French writers, etc. I scrolled down to the new "Check all boxes" link in my Favourites, and instantly, all the Amazon boxes were checked. Even while I'm editing your talk page, I can go to that link, and it checks the two boxes for "minor edit" and "watch this page" (well, that one is already ticked). So I was fairly confident when I offered to do it for the undeletion of that page. I went to "undelete 1200 [or whatever] edits", scrolled down to the "check all boxes" in my Favourites, and immmediately, I was still at the same page, but all the 1200 boxes were checked.

Anyway, if you have a version that works, I suppose it doesn't matter which version it is. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimV, you had an extra "---" that broke the JS. I removed it. Press cntrl-F5. You can also use shift (even withought JS) to select many edits at once.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark Lawson

Comments appreciated on this [2] (just found accidently). Arniep 01:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think it brings up fundemental questions about how WP is currently operating. I think I and many other editors occasionally (maybe quite often) allow edits to stand without citations, maybe thinking that we will find a citation but then forget to do it. So basically maybe we need to start being more brutal about not allowing edits without cites and maybe set a deadline or goal to provide complete citations for all articles. Arniep 18:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Crown Copyright

You've just archived your talk page, so I'll respond here. The basic Crown Copyright laid out by HMSO is indeed acceptable as a free license. However, it allows for individual departments to place additional requirements in their copyirhgt notices, some of which make media from them clearly non-free. See for example the copyright notice from the National Archives. Its material is protected by Crown Copyright. However, it also requires the payment of a fee for the use of any of its images. Others, such as the Met Office allow for unlimited reproduction only for private study and scientific research, with any other use requiring explicit permission — ie. {{NonCommercial}}. These also aren't acceptable as free images, though most of the time, the image can be kept under terms of fair use. This is why {{CrownCopyright}} includes a <noinclude> section underneath pointing to the list of acceptable sites at Template talk:CrownCopyright. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

No. If you read the comments made on the 3RR page last week you'll see that, in fact, I was blocked for adding the same words more than three times. Your interpretation of the 3RR rule is overly broad and unique. Homey 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Slim, Thanks for your note. I understand. best, Zeq

PS

I was actually starting to look forward to this as a way to cure my wikipedia adiction.... I really should take a break for a while. let's see if I can. best.

FloNight RfA

Wow, I'm altogether stupid (mustn't edit after 1am). Thanks for reverting me; for some reason, I didn't notice that the RfA'd been closed (I'd not been to RfA in the last few days, since there were none that appeared both close (per Dragons flight) and interesting. My bad. (In my defense, I've recently been taking Ambien; perhaps constructive proscriptions against EwI [editing while intoxicated] should be extended to EwTA.) Joe 06:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

who's stated purpose --according to whom? IDF  ?

yes. Zeq 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness

Please use your blocking powers more thoughtfully in the future. Me saying "It's Truthiness that counts" is not a reason to block me. - Xed 17:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Hey. Do not remove the expand. Do not be a jerk. Notice that this phrasing does not violate WP:NPA. 4.249.6.72 17:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, implying that someone's past behaviour constitutes "being a jerk" does violate WP:NPA. jaco♫plane 17:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I suggest you reread WP:NPA so as to avoid incompetence. 4.249.6.72 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ohh ok, thanks for the suggestion, I will do that! jaco♫plane 18:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as well we have 4.249.6.72 to keep all of us incompetent jerks in line. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

LockedandLoaded2

BTW Special:Contributions/144.124.19.33 is a sock puppet of Special:Contributions/Lockedandloaded2 and therefore violated 3RR. Arniep 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok

Ok I applogize, Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Incorrect

Please unprotect this page. I cannot communicate with this user because I am not admin and I want to talk to him. If you intend to unprotect it when his block expires, fair enough, but can you let me know?Grace Note 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- GN.

WP:LIVING

You may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Upgrading_to_policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar

SlimVirgin, I got your comment yesterday. The only problem is I looked at my contributions from the beginning and:

1. What you say is not true.
2. What are you calling aggessive?
3. If this a rule (with obvious subjective interpretation to it), why is it that I have never been informed of it?
4. What happened to the entire dispute resolution process?

Funny enough I left you one or two comments a while ago, both of them friendly in nature, because my friend Merecat recommended you to me, and I liked your page, and you never returned the favor to me.

Can you please verify your accusations, show me where this rule is, and explain to me why I cannot have the normal dispute resolution that Wiki policy clearly states? thewolfstar 07:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Email

You have email :) Terryeo 07:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, my name is Thetruthbelow. I just wanted to say hi, and that I greatly appreciate your honesty on my comments. While i can identify with CTSWyneken more, I understand your reasoning. What I also wanted to say was that i greatly admire your edits, and i wanted to be friends with you rather than enemies. You seem like a very smart person, and I appreciate your honesty on my writings. Your Friend, Thetruthbelow 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. I'm just starting out on Wikipedia, but if you need any assistance on writing or editing an article, I'd be glad to assist. Mostly, my area of expertise is in World War II and the American Revolution, but I would be happy to help on anything. Thank you again, Thetruthbelow 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther Talk

Hey, I was wondering if you could read my explanation of why CTSWyneken thought you were insulting him or me, just to make sure you agree. I don't want to cause a conflict, so im trying to prevent one. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger Tags

Hi! I just stumbled over this:
Shouldn't this page be merged with Moldova ? --Piotrus 14:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On principality of Moldavia.

There was some discussion shooting this enthusiastic idea down, then shortly afterwards, another merger proposal tag was placed on the article trying to merge a geographic region and the article on a defunct political entity with a region that is only half overlapping the old country. There was another move involved too, for the stuff that belonged to the new nation state Moldova. 'Youthful hormones', full moons, or some such, I think. The point is longevity... why the heck don't the templates automatically put a date in them? Three months later, no merger being condoned, any editor can pull them. Then there is this Moldova (Romanian region), which (possibly) ought to be merged with the first, depending on era, transliteration of alphabet, etc. Add in the diambig page: Moldova (and dare I try Moldavia??! Whew! It redirects to the upper link.)

I'm going to ask Mel EtitisT (done) to sort out the geographical articles, as he has some expertise in that region, iirc; can you tell me whether any time-expired policies apply on this issue, and whether there is a log. I'd guess the second merge proposal happened in early-to-mid September. I think I went back sequentially through all of October nearly that far.

Thanks -- I'll pull these two tags now. FrankB 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I gather from the 'silent answer' this somewhat buried 'unrehetorical question' went as 'rehetorical'? (My Bad--I'm just browsing looking for answers on those matters still open, and I'd forgotten whether you came off your page or answered here.) <G>

The point is longevity... why the heck don't the templates automatically put a date in them? — As in, I figured you'd know if that had a proposal history, why it didn't happen, etc. Strikes me as a good idea. Thanks, sorry for the nag! <g> FrankB 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Guess I need a two-fer--User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive29#On_snafus.2C_typos_and_misspellings, this is the one I was following up. Best regards! (no hurry on either-- just working a list!) FrankB 17:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

Copy/Pasting Mystic's message:

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me Template:Smiley!!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce Template:Smiley (Friendly smile)
• {{smiley|2}} will produce Template:Smiley (Confident)
• {{smiley|3}} will produce Template:Smiley (Mocking)
• {{smiley|4}} will produce Template:Smiley (Hysterical)
• {{smiley|5}} will produce Template:Smiley (Hurt)
• {{smiley|6}} will produce Template:Smiley (Very Sorry)
• {{smiley|7}} will produce Template:Smiley (Sleepy)
• {{smiley|8}} will produce Template:Smiley (You are Nive)
• {{smiley|9}} will produce Template:Smiley (I am not happy)
• {{smiley|0}} will produce Template:Smiley (No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ref format again :-(

I don't know if you're still interested, but the reference format is coming up again at Talk:Global_warming#To_ref_or_not_to_ref.3F_.28FA.29 William M. Connolley 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wierd Stuff in 'Partnership Minyan' Page

Hello, the Partnership Minyan article and its talk section seems to be attracting types who are arguing things like women are inherently lewd and they shouldn't be in a synagogue at all, and who keep inserting statements in the article that are pretty close to vandalism. Perhaps you and a few others might want to keep an eye on it? I've taken the view that people can make objections as strong as they want as long as they stay in the 'Objections' section and are sourced. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 14:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Looks like we have what's basically a revert war. Is it possible to lock the article (after making sure it's reverted back) and force a discussion before any changes? Pretty new here, not sure how these things or done or even if I'm able to do them. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise

Hi- your wisdom and experience are needed, this article is chaotic at best: List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise, Thanks FrankB 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tzniut Article

Hello, Thanks so much for all your help. Looked at the Tzniut article and noted that there used to be a section on the Conservative view that was deleted. I had added a reference (sourcing Orthodox but non-Haredi views) and it got deleted. Looks like everything but the Haredi view is getting deleted and there are all these Chabad references popping up. Would you know someone familiar with the subject who might be willing to keep a watch and make sure the content doesn't stay totally one-sided? I don't really feel qualified to present the Conservative view on this particular issue, perhaps somebody can. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 17:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thank you for your vote in my RfA! I appreciate the comments, but you may be under a slight misapprehension: I do not and did not support Cheesedreams, but rather opposed the stalking, intimidation, and admin priv abuse which occurred to oppose Cheesedreams before the user became a vandal. But it's good to know such topics are still discussed here. Thanks again for voting! The RfA did not gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 17:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Font size for references

Hi SlimVirgin. Sorry if this looks like I'm stalking you, but re: [3]. May I ask you to use the class references-small from MediaWiki:Common.css? It is better not to hard-code font-sizes in article text. I'm currently converting these to use references-small. Example edit: [4]. See also the talk on MediaWiki talk:Common.css where this has been discussed. references-small is intended for articles where the per article consensus is to use smaller font on the references. --Ligulem 18:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, thanks for your note. I deliberately increased the Joel Brand footnote size slightly because they were hard to read otherwise. What difference does it make if font sizes are written as percentages within texts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to maintain and is harder to keep a common style. And, most important, it cannot be overriden by a local CSS file like user:Ligulem/monobook.css if hard-coded in the article. It is general good practice for webmasters to prefer to define font sizes in CSS files and not in articles. For the Joel Brand article I would recommend to leave away the 95% entierly around the <references/> if possible. BTW, I'm not a fan of these small fonts anyway, but a lot of wikipedians like them. But please try to do font sizes with CSS if possible. --Ligulem 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

maybe of interst

[5]. btw, nice fractal on your user page. Zeq 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI(2): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANakba_Day&diff=52475545&oldid=52267877 Zeq 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Quadell/remedy

Hi,

With the departure of Quadell and Talrias, it looked like User:Quadell/remedy was about to die. However, I think there might be an opportunity to persuade Ambi to accept it. Keep your fingers crossed, or feel free to do something less metaphysical to encourage her. Regards bobblewik

Apologize

I would like to apologize to you personally for putting that quote on the article. I personally do not believe Luther's writings had any affects on Hitler or other anti-semites, but i have been asked by others to put in an article that said he did to show both sides of the argument. But now that I read over it again, that quote does not relate to the topic of On the Jews and their Lies and i realize it should be removed immediatley, so i did. The other info i believe belongs in that edit, but regardless, that first quote did not. I am sorry that I messed up, but I am still learning my way around, and I promise to try harder not to mess up. Your Friend, Thetruthbelow 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

I banned Zeq from editing Nakba Day under his probation because I saw evidence that his editing was unnecessarily aggressive. He has asked me to unban, but I dont think the ban was unreasonable. I've asked for a review on WP:AN but there have been few responses. I wonder if you'd like to take a look, since I notice you recently edited the article. [6]

I'm not trying to drum up support, just looking for honest opinions and possible lifting of the ban. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain again violates 3RR

CTSWyneken's colleague User:Ptmccain is [again] in violation of WP:3RR by executing his 14th identical revert to the Martin Luther article (the last of which was his 4th within a 24 hour period). Ptmccain has not only repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with official WP policy and engaged in repeated acts of vandalism, but has demonstrated his contempt for WP policy and administration. See here, for example, where he again blanks the page after be directly told not to do so and adds, "Your "Stern Warning" is received, with no little amusement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ptmccain

14th # 12:04, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (move text to a more appropriate location)

13th # 02:50, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)

12th # 17:56, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)

11th # 12:13, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to a more appropriate location)

Please note that the 14th revert was executed less than 24 hours after the 11th identical revert in violation of WP:3RR.

Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated by at least one and I suspect many Wikipedians. Doright 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Upset?

Are you angry at me. You seem to dislike me for some reason, as when I edit, some if it has been reffered to by you as "pure nonesense". Your tone seems to imply that you are upset with me...and all I wanted to know is if their is something i can do to reduce that anger. I wasn't trying to upset you, but unless I'm wrong, it seems like you dislike me. Write me back, Your friend, Thetruthbelow^(talk) 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem

I just read your note on my talk page were you stated that, "Similarly, to say that something happens "because of historical circumstances" or whatever the wording was, is also odd writing, because why else do things happen (unless you were making some sort of Marxian point, which I doubt)? What was worse about the latter is that you attributed it to the author, whereas he almost certainly didn't say that." Actually, the author said EXACTLY that, and if you don't believe me, ask CTSWyneken to send you a copy, as he is loaning that article to me on the requirement that i don't send it to others. Thank, Thetruthbelow^(talk) 02:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaction to the bombing

"The names of the non-Jewish victims were engraved separately from the others" is not a reaction to the bombing. Best, Zeq.

Attack on Zeq

I quite agree as to the harshness of Zero's comment regarding Zeq, see my response at [7].

What the hell

Quick favour, or point of order, or something. Look at Peter Tatchell. Myself and User:Dbiv (David) were involved in a conflict, and so, he removed the info (Which was sourced) he didn't like, and then locked the page so I couldn't edit it. Surely that is not allowed? See the diff Here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that... do you want to be the uninvolved admin ?--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. Irishpunktom's highly disruptive POV edits to this page have been a constant problem since he noticed it. The information Irishpunktom was attempting to add is clearly original research. Will await your reply. David | Talk 14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

the information I am adding is sourced,a nd you can see that yourself. It is verified and not OR, but David just doens't want it because he has his own POV, which leaves us in a problem. Your help is appreciated! --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to look at User:Dbiv/RFC on Irishpunktom. I have not yet filed this RFC because Irishpunktom stopped editing disruptively for a period. It summarises some of his previous problem edits. I understand the editors of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy article also have concerns over him. David | Talk 14:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, david has a personal problem with me, and this is reflected in his aggressive editing and blocking. - Again, your help is appreciated! --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What blocking? If you look at the block log you will see I have never blocked Irishpunktom. David | Talk 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to you blocking the page from editing. - Discuss your concerns regarding statements made by me on my talk page, or on the pages' talk page, not here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Americans

Hi Slim, Thanks for checking up on me and leaving me a note. Here is the deal about my edits and MY agenda. About 6-8 months ago, a bunch, maybe 5-10, editors went on a MAJOR "Jewish-American" rampage in here, adding that term to the intros on as many biographies of persons of Jewish decent as they could get their hands on and trust me, there are ALOT of notable persons of Jewish decent :). Anyways, ALOT of them were reverted back since it APPEARS that terminology(sp) is not appropriate for INTROS of biographies. Now I am not talking about persons BORN in Poland for example who moved to the States or persons of dual citizenship, ect or persons who are NOTED because of thier "Jewishness" or if they write EXCLUSIVELY on Jewish matters, ect. I was trying to REVERT the biographies of persons who had the "tag" "Jewish-American" added to their biography header. SHOULD their ethnicity be discussed in the article, sure WHY NOT? Where should it be placed/discussed?? Not sure, probably under early life, ect. I have seen it inserted into biographies where it really makes the article read poorly, IMO, but whatever.

How this actually started for me as a new, I am still new, Wiki, was on the Edward Teller article that was a featured article. Mr. Teller got the Jewish label and I questioned it so it got moved. Even today, Teller's decent seems sort of out of place for the article as a whole, but again, whatever. It seems that some people want to stress one's "Jewishness" for some "reasons" that aren't really clear. The problem with that is there are "good" reasons and there are "bad" reasons to stress ones ethnicity. In doing my edits, it wasn't long before I "caught" some guy that was going into EVERY criminal of Jewish decent and making note of their ethnicity, not to subtle, but it showed some sort of bent, IMO, agenda of his.

I see that you have great expertise on Jewish matters so I would be happy to defer to you on edits in this area. I assure you that I don't want to discount a persons ethnicity or insult ANYBODY in here regardless of their faith or lack their of. I am of a certain decent...but what it IS really shouldn't matter to how we edit/contribute to this project, should it? :) I look forward to further discussions with you and please disregard my horrific spelling, I REALLY do have some education.Cheers--Tom 16:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slim, in my ramble above I am not sure if I answered your original question to criteria for removal of "Jewish-American" I am trying to REVERT articles that were edited by anonymous IPs that were ONLY adding the tag to the header of biographies and NOTHING else. Its a work in progress since there are 100s of these out there, go figure. Again, if you feel I made a "mistake" PLEASE revert it back and we can discuss further/later. I really do have better things to do but once I got going :). Hopefully this answers your question and if it doesn't please let me know. Thanks!--Tom 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Slimvirgin, please help!

I had to post this on the talkpages of User:Danny and User:Essjay following some events today.

Hello, I am Juicifer, I have returned to wiki after a few months and got a new (Protoz) name after some unpleasant threats.

I would like to have my IP unblocked please. I would like you to explain why you are deleting the article on this guy without consensus. That Essjay now claims on the Protoz page that I am a sock-puppet of "Israelbeach" is demonstrably false, as his his assertion that this has been checked with checkuser - if that is checked I can assure you that you will find that Essjay is in error (to be generous). I merely came to this article browsing through the Google news for wikipedia. When I found the page and history had been erased, despite a recent strong Keep AfD and no discussion on the talk page I became curious. Assuming good faith, I replaced the article based on the Google cache. I posted a plain query to you and another Admin who had deleted the article asking if there was a good reason. I was blocked (along with god knows how many other people on the same AOL IP.

So, after returning to wiki after a few a months it appears:

• a) A article has been repeatedly deleted against consensus by two admins, deleting the history and providing no explanation on the talk page.
• b) An apparent newby (me) on a generic AOL IP was given a complete ban on account of stalking User:Danny despite merely posing a comment on the talkpage to the effect that he should explain his actions or expect me to take the usual actions.
• c) I was falsely accused of being a sock-puppet.
• d) Most seriously, User:Essjay one of the 14 most senior administrators who are trusted with legally confidential information (subject to the 6 stated exceptions) has not only claimed that Protoz (me) is a sock-puppet of "Israelbeach" but claims that this has been confirmed by the Checkuser tool. Either there has been some ridiculous coincidence and I really do share this AOL IP with "Israelberch", or Essjay found no evidence and (forgive me, WP:NPA and all that) decided to "economise on the truth" by saying that Checkuser confirmed what in fact it had excluded.

While d) is an inexcusable breach of trust and abuse of power, I am sure that c) is merely a misunderstanding.

As to a) and b). As I can ascertain, the deletion by User:Danny followed the publication by the article's subject of a critique of wikipedia, which is how I found this in google news. It makes wikipedia look very childish to then remove the article on him as a "punishment". Such authoritarian censorship is the exact opposite of what wikipedia is about.

P.S. It appears that User:Danny also unilaterally deleted the article on the organ that published the critical piece. What an embarrassment for wikipedia that it sunk to petty censorship.

jucifer 18:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Uni Wales user

Continuing to add POV statements Special:Contributions/144.124.19.33, Special:Contributions/144.124.16.28, Special:Contributions/144.124.16.33. Arniep 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

Can you look at the talk page for that article? I protected it a few days ago because of a completely unproductive edit war that was contributing to an increasingly acerbic atmosphere on the talk page. Having followed the discussion since, I can understand the points being made by both sides (despite the attrocious spelling and grammar). One "side" has declared consensus--which they certainly have among themselves, but nothing has changed, and I see no evidence that the edit war isn't going to resume immediately upon unprotection. I'd appreciate any feedback you could leave for the editors or for me on my talk page. Thanks for your time and attention. Tomer^talk 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unjust Vfd of Berel Wein

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein. Shabbat Shalom ! IZAK 12:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken is deleting references again

CTSWyneken is wikistalking and deleting references again. For example, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Niemöller&diff=52819033&oldid=52793333. Please take a look. [[8]]Doright 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thank you for addressing this problem and improving the Martin Niemöller article.Doright 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Really sorry, it was a mistake. I punched wrong keys. Siddiqui 22:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, please help me

I have a strong feeling the editor who was previously harrassing me is up to his old tricks again, this time with a sock. I may be wrong, and I wanted to proced carefully, but when I asked someone, anyone to investigate the potential sock, he beat me to the AN and asked for help against me harrassing him and now I'm deluged with people telling me to lay off, which is, well, frustrating. Since you have some familiarity with the history of all this, I thought maybe you could weigh in. I'm not handy enough to give you the diff (since the contribs are all chopped up, but it's in regard to User:Gomi-no-sensei. NB, keep in mind that there are deleted/archived/moved parts of GNS's talk page. Thanks. IronDuke

Thanks again. Just realized my email wasn't enabled, in case you tried to send me one. If you don't mind, please let me know on my talk page when you've sent it. IronDuke 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied. IronDuke 00:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIan_Pitchford&diff=52971881&oldid=52548168

Zeq 08:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't Delete Others' Comments on Talk Pages

Even if you've edited their contributions, it's not kosher to remove others' comments on talk pages. See WP:TPG, "Avoid deleting comments on talk pages, particularly comments made by others." — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, WP:VAN: "Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism." I'm not accusing you of vandalism, but just pointing out it's very clearly against policy. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've replied to your response on my talk page. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

On expediting multiple article renaming to be official

Hi, ebook vs. eBook and similar articles have the same wikinaming clash versus outside world usage clash, and a category move/rename vote are all boxed up in this matter. If you can take a peek, especially where I suggest we use you as a 'referee' on holding an expedited official vote on these matters, and give us some guidance, 'twould be good and timely! Thanks, FrankB 20:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)