User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| My archived talk | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Archive 1 |
Archive_18 |
Archive_35 |
|
Contents |
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Equal Protection Clause
Hello, this is the fellow who liked your Bernard Williams article so much. May I ask a favor of you? I've been editing Equal Protection Clause recently; I submitted it to peer review, and now have nominated it for featured article status. If you have time, would you mind looking it over, and telling me what you think of it at the above-listed page? I hope this doesn't come across as an I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine kind of proposal: I'm soliciting your comments because your Bernard Williams article clearly shows you to be intelligent. Thanks, and best regards, Hydriotaphia 01:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm sorry that you're being attacked. Alas, it only takes one tinfoil hat to ruin the experience. I just hope it won't deter you from future contributions. Hydriotaphia 01:25, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. Hydriotaphia 03:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Wiesenthaler/SLUR/
25,000 are dead, and somebody wants to waste everybody's time talking about noses. sheesh. Anyway, it's a fine point, but was the user banned or just the username? Is PRAVDA anyone? -Willmcw 06:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ken Bigley, again
I posted on the talk page again. Please look at my comments. WhisperToMe 20:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
International English
Hi, Slim. I will try to help mediate with this, but I probably won't be able to deliberate on it until tonight. Maurreen 15:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dennis King
Dennis King, the author, has asked me to have you telephone him. If you'd like, I can pass along the number. To be honest, King was quite rude to me in email, and so I would caution you that he may be hostile. --Jimbo Wales 13:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) (it is really me, but I can't log in right now because I'm in an insecure location -- just email me if you're interested, be sure to mention wikipedia to get by my spam filters!)
re: edits to kraut juice
Seems not worth getting into, but if the change was to smooth out neutral tone, there's probably some way of rephrasing that bit of text instead of deleting. The article's pretty tiny, and this substance's most interesting property is that people seem astonished at the idea of drinking it. Auto movil 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nah, fine with me. I might try adding something to the article at some point, but 'kraut juice' is about as minor a topic as one can find around here. Auto movil 20:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Happy new year to you as well Slim
Thanks :-) In the words of Hugh Grant in Notting Hill - I intend to be impressively happy this year. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- LOL! I'm happy now ;-) Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! Happy new year! El_C 06:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: Holocaust
Since it's only one user, I think the better option would be to block the IP (s/he's been given a final warning): It's best to protect articles only if there's a large volume of edits from multiple users. Reason being, if the article is protected legitimate users can't contribute to it. Cheers, -- Hadal 05:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: Categories
As far as I know, you have to manually add category listings to articles. The problem with the articles I edited was that they were all peoples' names yet they linked to the category with the article title, so an article about "Andy Zebra" would get listed under the A's instead of the Z's on the category page.
I just figured that out for myself by seeing the problem and investigating the variables (correctly- and incorrectly-listed name articles). I'm not aware of any articles about category conventions, I'm still a bit new here. How did you find out that I was editing so many categories? Recent changes?
Asriel86 01:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Returned from Mirv
If you had read the rest of my conversation with MPerel you would have seen exactly why I didn't block in that case. Since you're an intelligent person, I'll assume you already did, and I won't bother to repeat it here. Your contention that Irishpunktom "also appeared to be a sockpuppet" appears to be quite mistaken; again, since you're an intelligent person, I'll assume you can tell the difference between a user who's been around for months and has made several hundred valid edits and a user whose only contributions were to the same side of several ongoing revert wars.
Since you're relatively new here, I'll assume that you ignored and omitted such obvious facts out of ineptitude rather than malice, and I'll assume you didn't intend your post to come off as thinly-veiled sarcasm. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Charles, I'm sorry if I didn't make my question clear, and I apologize if it seemed like sarcasm. My point about Irishpunktom was that, sockpuppet or not, s/he violated 3RR, yet you didn't block him/her and you called the 3RR violation report "tattling." Yet with ListenToThis, you did block him/her for suspected 3RR violation. I am therefore genuinely (not sarcastically) asking why you blocked one user for 3RR, but not the other. Slim 02:27, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
HI Charles, I'm getting a little confused because you keep deleting or moving text. My point, again, is this: You blocked ListenToThis because you believed s/he was a sockpuppet to get round 3RR. The main issue for you, as you made very clear, was the 3RR violation, not the sockpuppetry, because in and of itself, as you pointed out, sockpuppetry is not an offense. The issue, therefore, was 3RR violation. However, with Irishpunktom, who clearly did violate 3RR, not only would you not block him/her, you reacted to Mperel's request that you do so with the claim that Mperel was "tattling," and you seemed quite annoyed by the request. Therefore, my question is simply this: given that, for you, the main issue was 3RR violation, not sockpuppetry, why did you block ListenToThis for a perceived 3RR violation, but not Irishpunktom? Slim 03:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
