User talk:SlimVirgin/archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Nazi Salute

I suggest you remove your comments from here: [1] to avoid looking like an idiot.

Fine, they claim they are the copyright holder in that notice, but I still fail to see where and by the burden of what evidence they are able to substantiate the claim that they are. El_C 04:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Slim, here is a photo that I found: http://members.fortunecity.com/deathshead/molloy1.jpg. Enjoy the laughs, on me. Plus, as you mentioned earlier, he might be just a kid. Your right, plus, I have no clue if he is a webmaster or legal counsul, since he is not listed as either of those on the NZNF website. I have found that photo, and othersm at http://members.fortunecity.com/deathshead/. Enjoy. Zscout370 (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
That photo link http://members.fortunecity.com/deathshead/molloy1.jpg now redirects to http://www.fortunecity.com/referercheck/denial.jpg. It looks as if it has been removed. -Willmcw 23:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I got it on my hard drive, so no need to worry. :) Zscout370 (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
It is back on now. Zscout370 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I still can't bring it up, so maybe it's a different problem. I assume that it's the same one as the Molloy salute photo on this page http://fightdemback.blogspot.com/. I don't think that would be a good photo to use for a number of reasons. One of the other photos on fightdemback may be suitableto add as well. I see that a previously uninvolved editor has just added back the old version of the banner photo, to my surprise. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:00, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I resized the image, so it can fit well. But, if the consensus is to have the image be gone from the article until the (c) issues are taken care of, then so be it. However, I think the logo should be moved to the top of the article. Zscout370 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that the consensus is the photo should stay. I'm going to leave a note for Molloy asking for some evidence from the NZNF that they're the copyright holders. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for crashing your talk page, Slim. If we can properly claim fair use then it may not matter who the copyright holder is, though of course we should record that info. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I also apologize too, but as El C (?) said, Molloy will have to come up with evidence that he is the copyright holder. Also, one more thing, what is Yase!? Zscout370 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with the thought of Wikipedia succumbing to bullying by essentially anonymous editors making unverified/false claims. I suspect this is how the group operates in real-life as well, mostly bullying and unverified/false claims. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Plus, I think we can nail Molloy for making legal threats to Wikipedia users. Zscout370 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Zscout, I see you deleted it again. Did you mean to do that? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I did. I replaced that image with the logo of the NZNF. I feel ok if we wait until this dispute is resolved befor introducing the photo again. I should have explained it, and I am sorry. Zscout370 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to put it back, Zscout, as we're claiming fair use. Perhaps we can discuss it on the talk page? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I am fine with it, Slim, since it seems to be ok to me, and the page consensus seems to be that way. Zscout370 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Yase! is yes! expressed in very excited, jubilant terms, with much merriment ensuing. El_C 13:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
It's also a Star Trek reference: Yet another Seven Episode (YASE). This is Seven, but fans got fed up with too many episodes about her apparently. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
pout Those are the only episodes I like. Grace Note 00:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Man, we are just killing Slim's page. Well, it looks like the photo is not being contested so (hopefully), this issue is finished. YASE! Zscout370 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, in the interests of productivity, I think this thread needs to be continued, at least until individual letters get their own line, though I'm tempted to reach the singularity beyond that. I'm going to need the electro-magnetic relays aligned with the gravitational polarity of gigantic space kittens though, divide by the square root of π. El_C 01:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, but I know sooner or later, some will read my PFD and cap me with a GLOCK. Zscout370 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
This may be the appropriate time to discuss my understanding of how these indents are meant to be used, an understanding clearly not shared by anyone else. I always thought the first person left a comment with no indent, the second person with one, the third person with two, but then if the first person responded, s/he did so with no indent, not with four, because no indent was his/her original position and identifying mark, and the second person continued to comment with one indent, and so on. It means, apart from running out of page, that you can see at a glance which comment belongs to which commentator, as in two indents has left eight comments, and four indents has left 16, or whatever. I'm sure I read this rule on Wikipedia, but I'm the only person I've ever seen using it, which led to me being shouted at once by Mikkalai about how I should learn to do indents, at which point you came to my rescue, El C, as I recall. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I seem to recall something to that effect, not that I even remotely trust my powers of recollection. I usually break it at some point either when I want to say something different, or when it gets too long. Sometimes I'll slap a subsection as a breather; but I always find myself in amazement of, awe even, whenever I witness the extent some people are willing to follow that approach, with truly feverish fundamentalism! El_C 02:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
You've come to my rescue several times after I've made an idiot of myself one way or another, so they're probably all blurring in your mind. Is it the endless-indent approach that people follow in a feverishly fundamentalist way? Indentofascism? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hum, well, I seem to recall much the opposite, but I'll take that compliment! I think Indentofascism counts as an epithet; oh, the ubiquitous o', how you mock us! El_C 03:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Ha! I was right. Wikipedia:Talk_page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout, secondish point down. This shouldn't be happening! SlimVirgin (talk) 03:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Right, I used that before, but it always struck me as rather equovical, and most obviously not facilitative to heading towards the singularity of beyond one letter, the splitting of the fundamental letter of you will. El_C 03:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The page, once saved, adjusts itself by getting wider. Cheats! It's a quantum Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle situation, a Schroedinger's Cat. You can't both observe and measure the width of a page. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that, too! Boo! If it dosen't split the words, what chance do we have of splitting the sweet, sweet nectar of the letters within? Not to mention, then split the letters. :\ El_C 04:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
It may have been because I posted an internal link. I noticed a particular broadening at that point, the page cabal protecting its own. If we avoid links, we may achieve splitting quite soon. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Slim, I would watch out for 202.74.215.138. That is (was) the IP address that Malloy used to not only revert the NZNF page (to the version I did) but to leave a message on that talk page, describing that Wikipedia is not a hit list. Zscout370 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, ZS. I think he signed the post. For some reason, he prefers not to sign in sometimes. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Appears we've reached single-word threshold! El_C 04:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I may have to get the Bailey's out to celebrate. No hang on, it's out already. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
YASE! El_C 04:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
[2] -Willmcw

[edit] A question about newbies/unintentional vandalism

A certain user, JuanMuslim, seems to be posting his own school assigments on Wikipedia: see Virgin Mary in Islam. Some of this information could probably be incorporated into another article, but it doesn't really work alone. His page Juan Galvan also seems to be autobiographical, so I'm not sure if the information necessarily belongs in an encyclopedia. What does one do in this case? (Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia.) Emiao 01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your response! Another question: I know how to revert pages, but how do you produce the edit summary "Revert changes made by X to last version by Y"? Do you have to write the whole thing out? Emiao 05:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Blocklog

Hey, SV, that's a very good question—I ran into a similar problem a little while back. It turns out the problem is that when Jtdirl blocked the user, he put "User:Leifern" as the username instead of "Leifern". The system ignores the extra "User:" and still blocks the appropriate person, but it won't show up on the block log unless you change the title field to say "User:User:Leifern"; see [3]. There's no way around it that I know of except to ask people not to block "User:User:xxx". Maybe I should see if I can add a note to the block page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Serbia

Ahem...In case you haven't noticed:

  • the issue was thoroughly discussed at Talk:Greater_Serbia, pt. 1. (Vuk Karadzic's linguistic pan-Serbism)
  • the user "Dejvid" started a revert war with his unsubstianted claims and revisions
  • he failed to justify his revisions and, during the debate, simply avoided to discuss the tricky questions. Or, vice versa, heaped unimportant jounalistic material as a "proof" of his theses etc.
  • all dubious points are thoroughly discussed at the Talk page. So, the whole "affair" is not about differences in opinion, but about vandals who would like, at any cost, to impose their distorted perception of reality. Mir Harven 08:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
First I have checked the history and I'm sure I didn't break the 3RR. I may have broken the spirit of the rule and were you to say that I would not take issue. I accept that "3 reverts is not a right" but it is an important line and I really don't think I crossed it. Please check that bit again.
The real problem is not that there is no longer any discussion but when there was we were talking past each other. My perception is Mir is to blame for that and likewise Mir thinks the same about me. Really we need a 3rd opinion but no one responded to the request. Maybe that is not surprising as the reputation of a 19th century Balkan linguist must sound pretty boring to those not in the know and that isn't helped by the condition that the request for a 3rd opinion must be neutrally worded. Any advice as how to make a third person feel it interesting enough to take the time to get involved would be much appreciated. As the problem is not over facts but their interpretation it really wouldn't matter if the 3rd person initially knew nothing about the background.
In the meantime I will try discussion. Who knows, it might work out better this time.
Dejvid 13:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Frankly- I don't see the reason for unprotecting the article. This Serbian apologist named «Dejvid» is not «talking» or «arguing» in any logical meaning of the word- these are just old Greater-Serbian dogmas, repeated ad nauseam (in a quasi-conciliatory manner to leave the impression of tolerance and good intentions). His revisions of the Greater Serbia article are, the way he phrased them, examples of distortion, falsity and unsubstantiated sophistry. And- they are very easily recognized as such, for anyone conversant with the topic. Just, due to the nice & goody-goody package, they may not be diagnosed properly by the average uninformed outsider. In this case: civility is a cover for a malign ideology. Please protect this article from further ideologically motivated vandalism perpetrated (yes, like a crime) by user «Dejvid». Mir Harven 10:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
One interpretation of your warning "If you continue to revert" is that the two of us are under a permanent zero revert rule in relation to the Greater Serbian Page. If you could clarify that it would be much apreciated. I just want to know what the ground rules we should be working to. Dejvid 15:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
If you can get someone who can offer a 3rd opinion then none of us will need to get close to the 3RR. Might I suggest that expertise is not essential just a passion for NPOV. Indeed it may be easier for someone who hasn't taken an interest in the Balkans up to now might find it easier to stay neutral. Not many people start to gen up on the Balkans out of pure academic interest. I certainly can't claim that. Dejvid 23:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Slrubenstein

Just so you know, I would have just warned this user for the 3RR violation, had it not been for a previous block for the same thing on the same article. I am not in favour of blocking on technicality, but when the offence is apparently repeated, I would definitely act more harshly. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber

Please do something about Yuber's constant vandalizing of pages - in addition to the Dhimmi page, he also continues to push his own POV edits in Saudi Arabia, ignoring the fact that his edits were rejected in dispute resolution. There are a few other pages he's pulling the same garbage on as well. KaintheScion

Please ignore this sockpuppet. He has been stalking me around on every page I edit and reverting it. He also listed me as vandalizing a page when I was clearly engaged in talk discussions and compromise.Yuber(talk) 13:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's at it again, blind reverts. Can you help defuse the situation in some way? Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, since an RFC was done on KaintheScion, we should do one on Yuber. Though Yuber has been reverting and inserting questionable items, but he does not really attack anyone and everyone. I believe we can convert this user to the Light side. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I certainly hope so, because most of his latest edits have been questionable at best, outright vandalism at worst. Jayjg (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandenn Bremmer vfd.

Excellent comments regarding verifiability and "truth". If we didn't go by sources... if we started a personal investigation into every article on Wikipedia, we wouldn't get anywhere.

And I must say, nice user page.

Ignorance - Beware this boy...

The story of the slim virgin is an odd one... cheaters and scoundrels get their just desserts, I guess. Like karma.

- Pioneer-12 23:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting in giving comments on a bitter dispute?

Then have a look at guru and talk:guru. There seems nothing to improve anymore with regards to citing from reputable sources but that doesn't make the dispute go away. Andries 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mr Tan

If you have time, I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at Mr Tan (talk · contribs) and his behaviour. There's an RfC on him, which brings out most of the relevant facts, but he has been utterly unaffected by it, continuing to behave in exactly the same way, aggressively taking control of articles, becoming if anything more brash and rude, adding editorial notes to articles, together with links to temp pages, which he has in turn protected with notes telling other editors not to edit them. I seem to spend a great deal of my time simply reverting his edits and protecting articles from his blundering attempts to improve their English (as you'll see, his own English is among the worst to be encountered on Wikipedia, yet he has written very scathing attacks on other editors' language skills).

I'm now too involved in all the articles to do anything of an admin-nature; if I hadn't been, I'd probably have blocked him from editing by now (one article, Zanskar, has been protected twice in order to stop his (at least near-)vandalising edits). More voices might persuade him to stop and think, or at least to slow down. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] just guess

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [4], [5]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Suggest a check Signature by: 213.122.143.128. Zscout370 17:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, I did not write this. I am glad it was not something bad. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, that was me, the official spammer of this talk page. :( I misread the diff, I'm not sure how sober I was, too. Not that that would stop me next time. Anyway, yeah, I signed your name in error (which, unincidentally, I seem to be making a lot lately!), thereby depriving the Anon of his signature, and totally distorting the message! Giblets anyone? Forgivæness please! El_C 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I says to him

Image:Feh.jpg
To better illustrates the look I got. El_C

Because you can't have giblets everyday! Somehow I feel he remains unconvinced. Inexplicably yours, El_C 22:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I know that look very well from my own face. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
We all feel like meh (or feh!) sometimes.... In my case, daily! El_C 00:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] user page vandalism

thank you for your revert. unfortunately you didn't revert the first vandalism though. there are some moron/s who have nothing better to do with their time than continually vandalise my page because they disagree with my beliefs. Xtra 09:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] screwup on VfD nom

I tried to be bold, but seem to have messed something up with my VfD nomination for Ryan Coleman. It shows as item 2. on today's VfD listing, instead of 1.3141268 or whatever. Help. :-/ Tomer TALK 18:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nevermind. thanks. I deleted it and put it back in and it works now. Tomer TALK 18:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of RJII's comment

I noticed that you removed RJII's somewhat uncivil comment on the BCE/CE debate page. While I agree that RJII's comment doesn't help the discussion directly, it helps us understand his decision making process and his views behind his edits. I seriously doubt Slrubenstein would have been hurt by the comment, and I really don't believe it was your place to remove it. Be Bold isn't intended to apply to editing other people's discussion outside of the main article space. --Gmaxwell 17:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg, thanks for your message. RJII's comment did not serve to explain anything about his vote and wasn't attached to a vote. This is an entirely personal thing directed against Steve, due to a dispute they had at another article. RJII is prone to make personal attacks and they serve only to create ill-feeling; for that reason, I feel justified in removing it according to Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I hope you'll consider supporting me in this. The page has deteriorated somewhat from its initial purpose (which was to decide on the BC/AD thing and to generate discussion of the NPOV policy), and I don't want to see it entirely degenerate into abuse. Steve has decided to drop out for the time being, which means he can't respond, so in addition to the above, it's simply unfair that these comments should be left on the page, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I can respect your position, although I strongly disagree with the practice of removing personal attacks. So, I will not create any more fuss about your reversion of RJII's commentary. I think this case is a good example of one of the reasons why I disagree with removing personal attacks: Right now there are several people who disagree with Slrubenstein who are accusing him of making personal attacks because some of the comments he made once the discussion became heated were somewhat uncivil, and yet no one has gone back and cleaned up his act. As a result of attack removal a reader of Slrubenstein's commentary would not see the real sequence of events that led to the strongly worded replies, and the reader might reasonably conclude that Slrubenstein was acting irrationally. If removing a personal attack actually caused it to never exist, I would probably agree with the practice but it doesn't. I think it would be more productive of us to reply to personal attacks by stating that making such attacks is unbecoming for a wikipedian and that we support the attacked, or at least don't agree with the attacker. I've also seen many cases where the accusation 'personal attack', when used on someones borderline commentary, comes across as insulting itself (after all, a good wikipedia tries not to use language that comes off as attacking) and as a result only manages to further heat a hot temper. I understand that we probably disagree on this subject, and I'm thankful for your politely worded and well thought out reply. ... Happy editing --Gmaxwell 18:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Greg, actually I agree with most of what you said, though I haven't read the entire page and so I don't know what the exact sequence of posts is. However, RJII's comment stuck out like a sore thumb because it wasn't part of any exchange, but was a sort of "up yours" parting shot at Steve, completely detached from the debate, which is why I felt justified in removing it. I'm not going to get into a further edit war about it, however (I've deleted it once more, but won't do so if it's restored again) and I also thank you for your thoughtful response, and for agreeing not to restore the remark. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human

Firstly, I wish to apologize for my English, but I am not a native English speaker.

Secondly, as all my recent additions were reverted instead of being edited, I wish to suggest different improvements. It is really silly that I have to explain some of them here, but everything was removed.

  • image descriptions: should describe the content of images, not the images themselves (see: Wikipedia:Alternative text for images). Besides that, the captions I added offered new information.
  • links - I made many links to other articles that were removed, although they were useful and obvious improvements.
  • references: new useful and requested references from reliable sources were removed. May I ask why? They were important improvements.
  • People with disabilities are not even mentioned. They should be, I believe, although this is a new proposal.
  • Different "minor" edits that may be equally important (although I find it rather silly to mention them before including). Do I really have to ask for including them before doing so? These are e.g.: genetics - I find it important to explain them briefly in light of 1% difference between human and chimps and in light of two sexes; an ovum is mentioned, but a sperm cell is not - shouldn't it be added?!; blood clotting - inaccurate and misleading; homosexuality is totaly neglected (it's important to at least mention it); information on written and extinct languages should be added or the current sentence about spoken and sign languages shortened; informal sanctions are mentioned, what about the rewards; certain people believe that inanimate objects have souls, do they not? and certain others do believe that not only humans have a soul-->definition should be changed; Messiah - salvation by human: also a part of Judaism (for a nation); puberty - removed, although an important part of human life. Btw, it was not only food I mentioned here!

In brief, although perhaps there was a mistake or two, many of my edits were good edits and I don't understand why everything was reverted as not important and wrong instead of being revised and why I have to ask before changing what is obviously inaccurate. I have provided references and if some material should perhaps be transferred to other articles, I would do it myself if I had been asked to do so. I hope for a fair answer, as I really don't understand your reasoning. You even did not take the time to look at my edits seriously. Many thanks, --Eleassar777 23:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: It is probably most appropriate to transfer the section with my suggestions on the talk page of the article "human".

Thanks for your willingness to improve the article yourself instead of just leaving it in a crude state I had put it in. You can start by implementing proposed changes that are important and you do not oppose to, but you nevertheless removed:
I would also appreciate you putting "implemented changes as proposed by Eleassar777: links, references and image captions" or something similar in the edit summary and leave me a notice when you finish as editing took me a lot of time yesterday. --Eleassar777 10:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In case you're interested...

... there's a dispute that has been listed on RfC at Talk:Perverted-Justice.com and so far I'm the only person who's come calling. I'm afraid my one lone opinion against two very entrenched opinions is not going to make terribly much difference... and beyond that, there are several issues that I've never dealt with before personally. (For instance, the webmasters of this site have created a special page for people who visit from the Wikipedia page, decrying certain Wikipedia practices and presenting certain information. I find this curious and I'm not entirely sure how best to deal with it). Anyway, FWIW! · Katefan0(scribble) 00:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Bleh! Thanks so much for weighing in. This one will be difficult because, it seems, there are so many anon POV warriors hanging around with either no understanding of or no regard for the way Wikipedia works toward consensus on talk pages... · Katefan0(scribble) 18:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Great editing, SV. You not only improved the writing, but you've raised the article to a much higher level of NPOV and accuracy. In the process you've apparently defused a chronic editing war. Not bad for 24 hours. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my theory

i believe this is either PSYCH or someone associated with him or her thus:

it appears to be a similar style each time. i am almost 90% sure PSYCH has done at least some of it.

PSYCH said he had posted to a left wing blog to tell everyone to attack me. therefore, i believe it is either PSYCH or someone acting on PSYCH's advice (e.g. Buffy05 who Tim Starling told me used the same IP as PSYCH). Mind you they keep on using different IPs it is quite hard to stop. Xtra 09:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

p.s. the person also constantly deletes the link to the PSYCH arbitration. Xtra 09:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AD/CE

Thank you for noticing. It means a lot to me. Tom Haws 18:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust photos

I dare say all the photos are copyvios and need to be removed. I was much more cavalier about such things at that time. Are you making any progress towards restarting on the text? Adam 06:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I will mention it to him. Adam 07:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche again

Hello SlimVirgin, since you're somewhat of an expert on the LaRouche articles, I'd like to ask for your help in the german ones. We have a user complaining about several factual errors in the article (de:Lyndon LaRouche and de:Diskussion:Lyndon LaRouche#Neuformatierung zwecks besserer Übersicht, bottom of the discussion page). It centers around the following questions: was LaRouche in later elections (not his first one) running as independent president candidate or as a democratic candidate (I didn't get the description in the english article), can he be considered as a trotzkist in one phase of his life, should the voices who critized the judgement in his law case be mentioned in the article etc. Could you give your opinion on this? The article is currently protected since the user made some POV changes in the article and an edit-war followed, he calls now for a NPOV message above the article. --Elian 15:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

At least the German version is under 10,000 words. -Willmcw 15:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is at the moment. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:55, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MacDonald fan

Another Kevin MacDonald fan has shown up and started editing; I thought you might be interested. Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at WP:AN/I#Anonymous user at Gaza_Strip, Israel unilateral disengagement plan of 2004? Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Hale

On my talk page, you wrote:

Hi Mirv, the reason I put the vprotect tag on the above is because it was an anon IP reverting five times in, I believe, just over 20 minutes with "RaHoWa!" as an edit summary. Not that it makes any difference, but I just wanted to let you know my reasoning. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

That's understandable; protecting is the best way to deal with anonymous POV-warring when blocks are impossible, as with large shared proxies like 168.209.98.35 (talk · contribs). I still think it should be treated as POV-warring rather than vandalism, though. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good image

Good image you added on primate. It adds alot ot the article. Thanks, Sam Spade 09:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of self-proclaimed deities

SlimVirgin, I would appreciate some help with List of self-proclaimed deities. The article has numerous problems and one editor with a too obvious "pride of authorship" makes it extraordinarily difficult. Could you help? Thanks. Do you have experience with "bullying" editors? What is the best way to encurage them to collaborate? --Zappaz 15:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel

Hi Slim: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 06:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human

References that I added are available in the version I created (in the main text or in the intertext <!-- -->). There are several of them, you just have to find them.

As for the image captions, I obviously forgot to add that this should be done only where it is reasonable (but it should be done there, in my opinion). I already wrote it, but it seems that I removed that before posting.

It would also be great if you implemented my review of the section on coagulation factors and hereditary disorders in the article. Reference: V. Kumar, R.S. Cotran, S.L. Robbins. Robbins Basic Pathology. W.B. Saunders Company; 7th edition (June 15, 2002). ISBN 0721692745.

Perhaps the section should be even removed, as I don't think it is very significant for the article "Human". So many other diseases affect humanity much more (cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, even common cold).

You can also add something about puberty (including environmental factors), disablement and homosexuality - although not being from any of these groups, I would appreciate that very much.

Otherwise, you'll probably be very glad to hear that I don't have much time to participate in the project now (and even less for contributing to "Human" with its edit wars and lengthy discussions). If I will edit at all, my changes will mainly be small changes (links, references) and adding images, unless I find something seriously flawed, according to the pre-existing literature.

I hope you found at least some of the changes I made useful. If you did not, you can think whatever you want, I won't argue with you. Regards and thanks for showing me new aspects of Wikipedia. --Eleassar777 08:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, although perhaps you have read Wikipedia:Editing policy already, do it again, as I did too and saw where I have been making mistakes. What is important: Perfection is not necessary. With all respect. --Eleassar777 14:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please get a clue

Bullshit and lies from you and your fellow bed-buddy admins notwithstanding, the so-called "evidence" placed by the liar Zscout against KaintheScion is something that I did, not him/her. It does not belong in "evidence" against him/her. ElKabong First, you and Kain are operated by the same person, so if you say something, he has said it. Second, regardless of how justified your complaint is, you could try expressing it politely. Everyone is tired of your extraordinary rudeness, and it's yet another attribute that indicates you and Kain are the same person. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not KaintheScion, never have been, never will be. That was a lie concocted by either Tony Sidaway or David Gerard in order to get away with banning me or KaintheScion in violation of Wikipedia policy on using admin powers to get an advantage in content disputes. As for you, I've seen no evidence that you are operating in good faith either. ElKabong NOT KaintheScion [cursing removed] .

[edit] ElKabong 3RR

No, it was my fault — I managed to put the report in the wrong place... It's there now. Thanks. I just thought that removing all his personal attacks was the only way left to go. If enough people do it, he might realise that not making them in the first place is less hassle. Well, he might. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I was going to do it, but it was hard trying to write the report. Plus, I noticed that IP User:129.7.35.205 (Contribs:[6]) were making the same reverts that user ElKabong was doing. Could this be an attempt to circumvent the block? If so, does the block get extended? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
It's ElKabong's IP address and it seems to belong to the University of Houston. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's clear at this point that ElKabong/KaintheScion's behavior is not going to change. He continues to make personal attacks (look at his contribution history - over half his edit summaries alone have attacks or profanities in them). In addition, he breaks the 3RR on a regular basis despite repeat warnings and blocks. Since other steps in attempting to resolve these issues, including a RFC filed by me, have failed, I intend to take this case to Arbcom if he doesn't cut it out immediately. I've given him a warning to this effect on his Talk page. Would you be willing to participate if this nonsense continues? Firebug 17:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Count me in. He has made many personal attacks against my moral character, and I had enough of it. Anything to make him/he/whatever disappear sounds good to me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Me too. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the folks at the University of Houston's College of Business would be particularly pleased that their internet service is being used to direct insults and profanities, clearly not an educational purpose. El_C 10:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Count me in as well. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Cheers, I was aware, and wasn't going to (personally) press the matter. I did, however, discuss it on IRC. I am not stupid enough to be drawn into Lulu's games. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Just wondering if you got my email (I don't trust Wikipedia's email system). Guettarda 22:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - I should check the acct linked to my Wikipedia mail first :) Guettarda 22:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 103

I think what you removed should be included, because we need to know that the people in Lockerbie showed the best as they helped the grieving relatives. SNIyer12

Here's an article to see about the response of Lockerbie: BBC-Reporter's Reflections We can discuss this in another day or two. SNIyer12
Fine, I agree with it. SNIyer12
Are you working on it, trying to get more info about the response of the people of Lockerbie? SNIyer12(talk)

[edit] Islamophobia

Please unprotect Islamophobia page or return it to Zora's last version which was the last agreed by all version. User Yuber came along and decided to try to force his POV so I perhaps incorrectly decided to revert to my own version which existed before Zora's version. There is a consensus for Zora's version . So please unprotect the page or lock in Zora's version.--Fredwall 03:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neofascism_and_religion

I am proposing a redirect from several endlessly contentious pages to a new page: Neofascism_and_religion. The three pages directly affected are Islamofascism, Islamic fascism, and Christian fascism. Any help you can give would be appreciated. :-) I am also posting this to several other folks. --Cberlet 17:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lulu

Hi. As you were sort of involved on the periphary of our dispute the other day, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2 and give your opinion? Thanks, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate.

My proposed policy position is this:

  • That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:
1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy
2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.
  • That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
  • Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 69.209.235.212

FYI: This user also vandalized the user page of Jayjg. That page, and your page was reverted by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebetika

copy of post left @ User talk:Sam Spade Jpbrenna 04:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ugen

Hi, SlimVirgin,

I've commented on your concerns on Ugen's RfA page. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] whoops

I didn't look carefully enough when I posted that, I deleted it but left your comment with my apology, you may want to 86 both for clarity. Sorry Sumergocognito 06:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guttlekraw

Sorry, I could not figure out your email link. I created another account for the purpose of contacting you, and will not use it to edit otherwise untill you block issue has been resolved. I do not understand which part of the 3RR rule I violated, since I thought that I had edited that page only three times. If I am in violation of it, appologies. It was born of frustration with Veriditas, who will not explain on the talk page the reasons for his reversion of my edits. I cannot find any justification for the claim that 'R2D2 has masculine programming' in the Star Wars cannon. Perhaps you can help me to understand this one? Yours, Guttlekraw2 06:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If you go to the "e-mail this user" link in the toolbox to the left of my user page, you can send me an e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm a klutz, I can't get that to work. Can we discuss it here? Thank you, Gutlekraw2 07:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, you can't get it to work? What happens when you click on it? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I just tested the e-mail link. It's working. Are you looking in the right place? Look at the box on the left called toolbox, fourth link down. Or you can leave your e-mail address here for me. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess it's academic then. Could you help me out on the Veriditas issue? I'm trying to understand him, but I can't get a straight answer on anything. On the R2 issue - I'd be happy to conceed if there was any evidence at all to substantiate his opinion. Any ideas? Guttlekraw 08:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rebetiko Article before I Had Touched it

is here

This is the edit history from that point on.

  1. cur) (last) 05:36, 25 May 2005 SlimVirgin m (protect)
  2. (cur) (last) 05:35, 25 May 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by Jpbrenna to last version by SlimVirgin)
  3. (cur) (last) 05:02, 25 May 2005 Jpbrenna (greek spelling, variant transliterations)
  4. (cur) (last) 03:13, 25 May 2005 SlimVirgin (added Greek for rebetiko)
  5. (cur) (last) 03:10, 25 May 2005 SlimVirgin (rebetika => rebetiko at start)
  6. (cur) (last) 13:51, 23 May 2005 Mel Etitis (→Rebetes - some tidying)
  7. (cur) (last) 20:31, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna

# (cur) (last) 20:31, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna (page move from rebetiko)

  1. (cur) (last) 20:30, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna
  2. (cur) (last) 20:29, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna
  3. (cur) (last) 20:26, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna (→Rebetes)
  4. (cur) (last) 19:48, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna (→Rebetes)
  5. (cur) (last) 19:45, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna
  6. (cur) (last) 19:39, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna
  7. (cur) (last) 19:36, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna
  8. (cur) (last) 07:53, 22 May 2005 Jpbrenna

The spot where it's bolded is the pagemove. At that point, I decided that the article content belonged at rebetika, and decided to move. Usually, I use the "Move" button at the top. I couldn't do that here without breaking the redirect first, which I did. I can't remember for sure, but I'm guessing that I just selected everything I was already editing straight from the preview box and dumped it onto the blank rebetika edit box that was open in front of me. Bad move. I think that's what erased the edit history. I'll remember to always use the "Move" button in future, which as I said, I usually do.

[edit] Rebetiko

Was there really a need to protect the article? I couldn't see any sign (or imminent threat) of edit warring. As you probably saw on the Talk page, there are lots of things that need to be added to and corrected on the page, and it's going to be a pain if they can't be started on. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd thought that you'd thought that there was going to be a war over the name. I hope that there isn't; the music is universally called "rebetika" rather than the singular "rebetiko" (it's a bit like listing the blues uunder "blue"). Well, we'll see what happens. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Tan

I think that that's all. I deleted the Zanskar one a while ago. he's kept surprisingly quiteabout the move (though he's just added another incomprehensible section to the RfC on him...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for help

I am asking for help as I am running out of options. User:Veriditas is continually reverting almost everything I do, and refusing to discuss it on the talk page. I don't know how to respond to this, because he simply won't explain what he is doing. It looks to me like he is pushing a pretty extreme agenda at the expense of other points of view, but I'm willing to try to see it from the other side. In the past you've commented on this issue, and I need your help if you have a few minutes. Thank you, Guttlekraw3 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

I do not understand why you move Wee Kim Wee/temp to User:Mr Tan/Wee Kim Wee. See [7] for example. I will move it back then, and ask User:JMBell for his reasons.

Tan 14:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that I did not allow; I'm only discouraging because of the "safety" matters. Please do not move the article unnecessarily.

Tan 14:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


Allright, I have witnessed the case in User:JMBell's case of Zossen. Mel Etitis has also objected on the {inuse} template. Sorry for any misunderstanding caused.

Anyway, you may unprotect and delete off Wee Kim Wee/temp; promise me; I will not move it again. I promise.

Also, I would like to extend my thanks to the admin who deleted my user page. That is all I have to say.

Tan 15:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I won't, I promise. If I add any templates such as {inuse}, etc, it was triggered by User:JMBell's edit of Zossen by adding that very template by himself [8]. I was merely being inspired by his edit to put up the messages. If I would propose to add any of those again, I"ll come to you first. I swear and apologise, but please move it back to Wee Kim Wee/temp, as in User:Nichalp's Mahasthra/temp.

Thanks.

I have already stated that I'm only considering on leaving, I never said that I will leave. Please give me sometime to think about it. I do not like my user page, either.

Tan 13:58, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

But my User page is something that I can wish to do! If I want it deleted, it is my free will; I don't see where User Pages are not allowed to be deleted, even under the User's direction.

I"ll explain the draft article problem later. Thanks.


Tan 14:10, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

See Nichalp's Maharashtra/temp. Just let me take him as the perfect example, and what he says at your very talk page itself [9]---would be what I want to be exactly. Like Maharashtra, it seems that Wee Kim Wee is not a high visibilty page in the first place.

Neither did I ever seen a person's draft article in his own user's page--can you name another person who encounters such an experience before? I cannot continue my work like this, and I am trying to give information to wikipedia! I want Wee Kim Wee to achieve FAC.

This is a difference of spiritual and emotonal factors. It is not wikipedian-related. Just if you have the sympathy to spare a thought of people so that they have the appropriate to work at least. Your comment will be greatly appreciated.

Tan 17:27, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr against User:KaintheScion and associated socks

Since KaintheScion has not changed his abusive behavior and has created another sockpuppet (User:Enviroknot), I have now requested arbitration against him. Firebug 16:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hello?

You bloked my IP because of something to do with Oliver North, but I have never posted there? Please help.

[edit] Bernard Williams

I was unsure about this. When I searched, I found pretty well equal evidence for both, but I felt that the sites using "Knightsbridge" were on the whole (very slightly) more trustworthy than those using "Knightbridge". Given that it was an unexplained change by an anon to a featured article, I thought it safest to revert until there was some conclusive evidence. I've e-mailed a friend who's a philosopher at Cambridge, but he's nototriously slow at replying (and if it's anything like Oxford, he'll be snowed under with work); I'll let you know as asoon as I hear back. Oddly, I didn't check in books (what is the Internet doing to me?); the only one that mentions his chair by name gives it as "Knightbridge", so I suppose we should stick with that for the moment ("print before screen"). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (Kid) Ravemaster speaks

hey! you tried to block me but it didnt work haha! but now i wont put wikipedia in my website

talk to me; IM: kidravemaster

email: kidravemaster@aol.com

[edit] Maharashtra

I don't have any problems regarding the page hosted in my namespace. Frankly, I don't see an difference in which namespace the article lies as its shelf life is usually short (this case is an exception). I agree that it may be my personal draft, but I encourage comments made on the talk page. The Maharashta article is not a high visibility article, that's why I haven't received any comments on the talk page. After editing I usually throw it open to other editors to copyediting. Only then do I copy the same text to the main article and delete the old. I guess that you must have also read User:ALoan's comments in the Village Pump. That said and done, I am open to editing in my user space in the future. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Birch Society

I have no desire to start editing it, but do you think it's time to unprotect John Birch Society? —Sean κ. + 19:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice user page

and talk page, nicely designed. Why the protection though? Have you had trouble? Dan100 11:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

It does need more cats though. A lot more cats! El_C 11:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)