User talk:SlimVirgin/archive14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] apartheid

I am trying to cool the situation, working with the edit warrior. He seems to have reacted in an unusual way to being blocked--he after a couple of blocks he settled down and he is talking, and his stated reason for his last revert seems to be evidence of good faith. For that reason I am unprotecting. I want to give him a chance to work this out and learn how to work with Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When 11 editors disagree/revert one editor, and he still insists that he is waiting for consensus to develop, I don't see much hope. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi! thank you for supporting my successful admin candidacy. I hope that you will always feel that I am a responsible administrator. JeremyA 05:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk page protected

Hiya, Slim, maybe you already noticed I protected 82.35.37.118's talk page, check it out. The response it brought is at the bottom of my own (unless already moved on up by 18th century lit stuff when you see this!). Bishonen | talk 06:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anonymous editor and Talk:Jihad

I have responded to this user on the talk page of Jihad. I wrote:

If you edited while being blocked for 3RR violation, you will be blocked for 24 hours again. Please treat the 3RR with utmost seriousness: it was formulated to stop intractable edit wars on contentious pages. Admins will react to any violations of a 3RR block through the use of anonymous editing or the use of sockpuppets with further blocks, and if necessary will take these violations to the arbitration committee. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am about to place a message on their talk page. As I'm not an admin any more, I hope that you will follow up on this admitted 3RR violation as I am unable to. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this is a judgement call on the behalf of the admin who has been watching the incident most carefully and closely. However, knowing as I do that the Jihad page is a magnet for bigotry, personal attacks and POV pushing, if I was the admin I would not hesitate in blocking the offending user(s) for 24 hours. I would also be warning anyone who makes personal attacks to the talk page of that article that they 3 warnings, then they get blocked for 24 hours — along with any suspected anonymous IP addresses and suspected sock-puppets. It's hard enough to edit that article when civil conversations and discussion is occuring without inflammatory comments being made by ignorant & bigotted editors.
One tactic that would be highly controversial would be to add a header to the top of the page giving a warning that anyone who makes comments deemed to be a personal attack will be blocked from editing for 24 hours.
Like I say, though, it's your call. As for being an admin... well... I guess if someone put me forward I wouldn't refuse :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 11:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have made a note on WP:AN#Personal attacks on controversial pages. I now have Template:Personal - see:
No personal attacks
This talk page pertains to an article about a highly controversial topic. Insults do not assist in improving its factuality, verifiability or neutrality. In the interest of being civil and productive, all members of the Wikipedia community are expected to review and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, follow good wiki etiquette, and abstain from personal attacks. Failure to do so on this talk page may result in being blocked from editing for a short period of time. There will be no additional warnings.
- Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am asking for policy ammendments on WP:BP and WP:NPA. Check their talk pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The template is now up for deletion. Could I ask you to vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feces

Please check your email. You have a formal request to unprotect the Feces page from someone other than me. Eyeon 14:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From an ArbCom ruling: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." Samboy 22:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have unprotected Feces. I want to see if the revert-wars restart. If they do, I'll protect again. smoddy 22:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon IP vandalism of suicide bombing

Forgive me if I haven't followed the format correctly. If you look at the followin edit histories:

It's pretty clear this is the same person, or if not that then two people acting together. Note insults against Yuber; bigoted comments about Islam; repeated reverts to the same articles etc. Hopefully this is helpful, as various contributors managed to reach a relative consensus on suicide bombing. What is the procedure for this? illWill 23:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Out of interest, what's to stop them from continually re-registering new anon IPs? I'm not much of a techie.illWill 00:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another one [[4]] just popped up. I don't know how they manage not to get bored - most of these changes are only being noticed by around five people, none of whom are daft enough to be fooled into thinking the writer is an ex-muslim woman "FROM INSIDE ISLAM YOU CANT POSSIBLY KNOW they killed my sister etc." I'd be more likely to be fooled into thinking it was Sollog. Anyway, thanks for the help. If the page gets vandalised anymore I'll ask for it to be protected.illWill 00:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Litani

Please lock this page. Yuber has instigated a revert war is deleting information relevent to the article. See for yourself.

Guy Montag 03:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that you don't lock pages for Guy Montag's enjoyment. He has yet to explain to me the relevance of the information.Yuber(talk) 03:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion in Armenian Genocide Talk Page

You know there is an article about Armenian Genocide and I think that you are thinking that "Armenian Genocide" has happened , maybe it has , there are too much evidence , and in my opinion it is not a systematical ethnic annihilation , because Non-Armenians were killed in there by Armenian Gangs too, there is no international agreement that recognise the "Armenian Genocide" or there is no a judgement of international court of war crimes about "Turks are responsible of the Armenian Genocide" , also there are many Turks and Kurds that died in there , I know that some important countries like France , Armenia ,etc. acknowledged this case , but this case is not a territorial law case, this case is about international law, and according to the international law , this case is not official yet, because there is no a judgement of international court of war crimes about "Turks are responsible of the Armenian Genocide" or there is no an agreement that recognised it or there is no decision that taken by accord in UN General Congress. In my opinion no body can acknowledge or DENY "Armenian Genocide" on Wikipedia , even the Nazis stood trial in international court of war crimes (We saw the Jewish Holocaust in encyclopedias after the recognisation of it by an international court of war crimes), but Turks did not stand on a trial yet, what is wrong with Turks in Wikipedia , we are not Nazi or something. We are human too and my grand relatives died in these events in 1915 in Mardin and they are "Turk"(I am tired of to be accused to be a barbarian as a Turk, but I don't see the Armenians as an enemy, I am not a nationalist) . There is an injustice in here. What Wikipedia is? Does not this article contrary to the Wikipedia policies about neutrality? If you say that "You are not right about Wikipedia policies" , I will give up discussing with the people , in the articles of "Armenian Genocide" and "Armenians" talk page.(Sorry to use your user page about this thing , but you are an editor,so I just wanted to take your decision). If you want to tell me your decision as an editor that I am right or not right , whatever you say, I will adjust you and your decision , I would be happy if you send me a message , waiting your decision about this case and Wikipedia policy . -- aozan

[edit] My Rfa

Thank you for supporting me! --Kbdank71 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA: Thanks

Hi SlimVirgin! Thanks for your support on my RFA! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 103

SlimVirgin, thank you for your feedback on my suggestion about creating new articles at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103. Take your time and finish the article. Then, let me know when you have finished so that you can create new articles and move some of the information from there to the new articles. SNIyer12(talk) 14:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber

Why do you continually protect the Islamist vandal Yuber? (posted but not signed by User: 212.184.72.38)


[edit] Dispute with willmcw

Regarding your comments on my talk page, you could not be more mistaken. Far from "following" Willmcw to the dispute with Poetatoe, my attention was brought to it exactly as I noted in my comments by way of the Eric Foner article. Earlier this morning I made some edits to that article including the addition of a source and the changing of a single existing phrase to a synonym that was closer to NPOV.[5] Your friend Willmcw, in his usual fashion, followed me to that article after noticing that I had made a change and subsequently deleted previously existing material from it that predated my edits by several months yet nevertheless made the demand of me to provide the "source" for it.[6] Later this evening I returned to the page to observe his behavior continuing and encountered Poetatoe's edit, which Willmcw had also reverted with the allegation of "vandalism" for what appeared to me to be a relatively inexperienced editor switching back to a previous version for unstated yet potentially valid reasons. I then went to Poetatoe's talk page to address the issue with him and invite an explanation. When there I quickly observed Willmcw's participation on his talk page, exhibiting behavior that was readily abusive toward this user and in violation Wikipedia's assumption of good faith mandates and hence my arrival at the page where Poetatoe's complaint had been posted. As to avoiding Willmcw for a week, nothing would please me more at the moment to never encounter him on a wikipedia article again and I'd happily take that week if I could. As this morning's edit of the Foner article demonstrates, however, I cannot make so much as a simple NPOV correction to a minor article without him showing up to demand things of me that I was never obliged to provide him in the first place. Such is the nature of this editor - he consciously stalks me around wikipedia as I have evidenced in extensive detail here [7] and while he may attact great esteem in your mind for reasons that I cannot know, I can judge him on my own experiences with him and those experiences lead me to conclude that he is generally disruptive and operates in bad faith towards myself and other editors with whom he disagrees politically. Rangerdude 05:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All I can say is

Thanks, -Willmcw 11:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 103

I still don't agree with you on the use of metric units, but I just happened to come across that article again and would like to congratulate you on your work. Impressive. Rl 12:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Thank you for your assistance. With regard to Wiki, I am not a noitall, yet :) --Noitall 12:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anschluss - thx

Thanks for the congratulations and thanks for the comments. Themanwithoutapast 22:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

  • I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
  • Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
  • More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
  • In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
  • If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
  • I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
  • I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
  • Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Love your picture! fabartus

[edit] Re:3RR

Thanks for your help with those 2 3RR reports. Jtkiefer 08:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template?

You probably mean Template:Guideline1? Well, regardless of when it was created, it's redundant with Template:Guideline, and in general redundant templates are regarded as confusing and/or instruction creep. If your intent is to reword or change the layout of the existing template, by all means do so (or visit its talk page if you want a second opinion). Radiant_>|< 09:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • If it's meant as an experiment, how about putting it in your userspace? Deletion criterion #2 reads "Templates should not be redundant". I don't believe there are many templates that have multiple versions; could you please back that claim with evidence? Radiant_>|< 10:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • In the past weeks, a large number of redundant templates were nominated and deleted per TFD, including multiple versions of the NPOV template. I'm sorry if this is impolite, but to reiterate, if you wish to improve wording or layout of Template:Guideline, edit it; and if you wish to experiment with templating, do so in the sandbox or move this to your userspace. Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • If you must know, Template:npovs was nominated for TFD by Netoholic and deleted by Ugen64 after getting a strong consensus for its deletion. I did vote to delete it, so if you want to hold me responsible, I don't mind. You are welcome to create whichever template you want - however, other users can also nominate such templates for deletion if they have a reason. There is no hidden issue; many people object to having redundant templates (as evidenced by both TFD guidelines, and actual voting). Radiant_>|< 10:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

I would need to clarify with you before I made this edit:

  • I had intend to write "lying in the Korea Strait concerning this paragraph :

"The Tsushima Islands are two islands lying between the two channels of the Korea Strait (the eastern channel is also known as Tsushima Strait), between the Japanese island of Kyushu and the Korean Peninsula. ", but when I wrote "lying in the Korea Strait", Mel Etitis had protested in Talk:Tsushima Islands and wanted to revert it back sometime ago. However, I noticed that your new edit is not feasible, so I am here to suggest whether is it appropriate to use the old plan? If you have doubts about the infobox, please see the talk page again. Your reply will be greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 12:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...I was in a rush to eat my dinner...I"ll explain again.

The current state of the article states that Tsushima Islands are two islands lying between the two channels of the Korea Strait (the eastern channel is also known as Tsushima Strait),.., but your edit unbracketed the bracketed sentence and you then brought it to the end of the first paragraph, right?

Let's come back to what I want. From the edit history [8], you noticed that I edited ..a group of islands lying in the Korea Strait between the Japanese.., but Mel reverted to the original version, which says ...a group of islands lying in the Tsushima Strait between the Japanese island.... Please see the Talk:Tsushima Islands if you want to know more...

What I want, is the third version that I stated. However, I instead used the version to soothe out the edit war that Mel was on. But again, I saw you opting for the second version, which seems to make the article look worse. I won't mind the first or third version, but I do not want the second or fourth version. Thanks. Mr Tan 13:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ypacarai

I do not see why this Ypacarai has been insensitively removing the infobox with the Korean name--the Korean name was already there long before I came, and I created an infobox for organization. Besides him, I do not see why he has been relentlessly removing the infobox, even after explanations at [9]. What is his big deal then? Mr Tan 16:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method

Hmm. It looks like the sentence was cut off. It should have said: "No consensus to delete. The article should be merged." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands — AGAIN!!!! (Arrrhghhhh)

  • Thanks for the speedy Fire Hose -- I thin we need another fire truck! In any event I just noticed you made some copyedits there today — a large number of changes ago. Wouldn't make more sense to lock this thing down while the plural-singular issue is settled once and for all? No buddies listening to the 'InUse' template, which reading the history I thin you took out - implying to my suspicious mind you've been reverted too. The Children want to play! What do you guess we have involved here — three or four? Heck, I can get this kind of show with my two teens in my living room, while reclining watching a good flick!
24.61.229.179 07:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi, Frank again... I just lifted something from your most excellent user page and I (through a chain of things that would be boring to you and me if I related them) ended up visiting the very first article I did an expansion on after signing 'On' as an editor — thinking it was one that was before that 'enlistment' (sic). I've several computers I use and I steal various laptops off my teens, wife, etc. so I have a lot of IP adresses to pin down contributions going back some 5 or 6 months. Well, this wasn't an IP edited arty, but I did a diff and was surprised. So I left a message on User talk:Biot, I think you can answer for me. That's because I suspect BIOT is an software program. Let me know, won't you? Thanks. <Chuckle> [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 08:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Sure... anyone can feel to go for it. Though judging by my past performance, I've so far pissed of User:Paul Barlow, User:Pcb21 (apparently I'm a liar and have done my part in bringing Wikipedia into disrepute) and User:Grace Note. I somehow doubt that I'll get it :( Especially after the Dalek episode, which I will forevermore be apologising about. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just nominated TBSDY. Feel free to add anything! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Any deluxe mops left?

Some time ago you offered me the compliment of asking if you could nominate me for the post of administrator. Back then I had fewer than 8,000 edits, was still wet behind the ears, and needed to think about it. Now I have over 10,000 edits and am ready for the job. That, and people keep calling me an admin so I might as well fulfill their expectations. It would be a great honor to be your first nomination (assuming that slot hasn't already been taken). It'd still be an honor to be your second, or even third, nomination. Fourth nomination? Well, I don't know if that's such an honor. Anyway... I haven't sought the job, but I try to do my share of vandal patrolling; the rollback, page move, and blocking abilities would be useful tools. This is kind of like asking for the fancier mop. Does it come with an attachment for removing bubblegum? Cheers, -Willmcw 09:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination and for your support. -Willmcw 21:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to?

How do I fix the annoying-looking (2 changes; Page history) [Doron; El C] for A'man on my watchlist? Any ideas? El_C 09:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

Would it be possible for me to edit the terrorism article to add a section on state sponsored terrorism that is unrelated to the current dispute? Marmot

[edit] Triple Curve on VFU

Hi, I put the Triple Curve article you deleted on WP:VFU. I don't think merge and delete is allowed, the GFDL license requires that the authors be attributed in the history if we use the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Sure, I think we can do this quickly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's okay. It was purely coincidental that I learned about that rule. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Hi. Could you tell me exactly why I am blocked? It seems there is a mistake.

Who are you, and who blocked you? And if you're blocked, how are you able to edit? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
He's germen. And now he's reverting again on the Islamophobia page. Please block him again.Yuber(talk) 17:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

The Apartheid edit warrior is back and POVing the article; 11 editors so far have disagreed with him, but that appears to be no deterrence. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good to be back.

I can't thank you enough for taking the time to welcome me back! Feels good. It's always nice hearing from you. How goes the admin duties? Stay in touch, OK? - Lucky 6.9 20:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd place

Please ensure that my 2nd place remains as such. I authorize you to block any subversive elements who wish to depose me! Heed my orders, or else... Image:Meh.gif El_C 00:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet sign problem

Just thought I'd make you aware that there seems to be a serious controversy at User:Enviroknot. Although I am not involved, I just thought I'd make you aware. See edit history for more information. --Anonymous editor 01:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Not involved"? While you've not actually made the edits yet, you're running around encouraging them to vandalize my page. Go away.Enviroknot 01:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Listen, I am just trying to solve this problem. I am not taking any sides whatsoever. See this is the problem, when I try to help both parties (you vs. everyone else), you make agression against me! Please refrain. --Anonymous editor 01:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of what you've done in the past. Assuming you are acting in good faith here is much like assuming the earth is flat.Enviroknot 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
EnviroKainKabong is now leaving personal attacks on Anonymous Editor's talkpage.Yuber(talk) 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I removed them. I did indeed try to act in good faith as there is so much controversy there, but I guess enviro resorted to his usual agression. --Anonymous editor 01:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Anytime you want to stop being a jerk, feel free. You've been a Yuber this long though, and you show no sign of stopping so far.Enviroknot 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Listen carefully: Now and in the past I have only tried to help solve diputes between parties involved. Before you go making personal attacks against everyone blindly, consider that they might just be taking pity on you and act in good faith despite your long history of childish nonsense. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 02:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have yet to see you "try to help", but I've seen you make personal attacks several times as well as supporting abusive editors like Yuber. And I've well noted that you just mass-blasted your little email not to responsible admins, but to the list of admins who've been harassing me. Your bad faith is noted.Enviroknot 02:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relativism vs Moral relativism

Slim, please look at Moral relativism...start with the caption above the article and then look at the discussion page... regarding the recent proposal to merge with Relativism. Thanks. icut4u

[edit] No problem!

Don't worry 'bout it :) Radiant_>|< 10:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Saudi Arabia

You protected this page a week ago. Perhaps you forgot to unprotect it? I can see that it's a page that attracts badly behaved people, but surely the correct response is for you and the other admins to come down hard on them. – Smyth\talk 12:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [removed personal attack]

He's at it again. WHOLESALE VANDALISM this time. It'll be on the RFAr in a second. Posted by User: 216.138.211.80

Now he's removing evidence against him from the RFAr.

I would appreciate your opinion in whether my edits to that page were appropriate. Cheers, smoddy 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No idea but I know that removing evidence against him on his blanking of a page was NOT appropriate.129.7.35.1 22:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how it happened, but I did not actually do that... See [10] for what I actually did do... I think I ended up in the middle of a revert war between two anons. Hmm. Not very nice. smoddy 22:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamo-fascism

Can you please protect this page? It was a redirect until yesterday when LeslieGlick (probably EnviroKainKabong) pasted a version of the article into it. I made it into a redirect again, but I have a feeling he will start bringing in proxies and reverting.Yuber(talk) 22:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

I have just noticed you protected Apartheid, but before you did so you changed the article, constituting a deletion of much of what was there before. I understand this is forbidden under the article protection policy, i.e. you must not protect articles the way you want them, i.e. if you are editing an article you should abstain from protecting it, and if you are protecting an article you should abstain from editing it.

I feel that it is necessary for you to either undo your change, or undo the page protection, otherwise you would be in violation of these rules. ~~~~ 23:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please undo your redirects of book pages

Clearly wikipedia supports the creation of book pages as mentioned here wiki cite sources comment on book pages , though there may be other mentions elsewhere. If you feel that somehow the book pages contain POV statements then feel free to add any correction you wish. My intent is not to monopolize their contents nor to create marketing content but to document essential works of authors who are presented in wikipedia. Your swift attention to this matter will be appreciated.--CltFn 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • See my comments on my talk page.Are you going to undo the redirects of the book pages I created or are you going to leave it to me to do that?--CltFn 23:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK - unprotect the book pages. I will review them for NPOV and make changes accordingly. Also , where is the reference about chapter list, as far as I can tell , those are allowed on bookpage unless explicitely prohibited in wikipedia.--CltFn 00:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Slim I got what your POV is on the book pages, how they should be and not be, however rather than telling me your POV on them in your own words of course , can you refer me to a specific Wikipolicy that must be followed as a guideline?

--CltFn 00:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok then unprotect all the book pages you have protected so far, on my end I will adhere to any relevant wikipolicy. As there are not wiki policies evidently prohibiting chapter lists we have to conclude that they are legitimate and can be used.--CltFn 00:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You keep alluding to the chapter list as not being acceptable yet you have not produced any wiki reference to support your assertion. Will you please acknowledge that Wikipedia does not prohibit them.--CltFn 02:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason this conversation has been going around in circles is because you are making a claim that

  • a) there is a wikipedia rule about the position of the book section in articles
  • b) that list of chapters are not permitted

You are then trying to impose those constraint on my edits without producing a wikipedia reference. You should have been able to quote a reference by now don't you think? I have already agreed to adhere to the wiki policies that you have presented to me. So what do you expect me to do ? Follow an arbitrary rule about A and B above just because you can lock a page as an admin?

  • Therefore are two possible outcomes: You produce a wikipedia policy about A and B and I agree to follow the policy or there is no such wikipedia policy and A and B are non-issues and we move on.--CltFn 02:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Yuber

I do not know if you noticed but I caught Yuber reverting the request for arbitration page after you reverted him. Enviroknot 23:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a second. I was reinstating Smoddy's deletion of your personal attacks, Enviroknot.Yuber(talk) 23:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I haven't been on all day, until just a few minutes ago. The edit is quite clear on diff, you are deleting an item from the evidence against you.Enviroknot 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you really uncork Jihad just so Yuber could go right back in and behave the same way that caused it to be protected previously?Enviroknot 23:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point of order: In light of [11] and [12] shouldn't [13] be changed? or am I missing something? Tomer TALK 05:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad article

Same problems again after article has been unprotected. Anon IPs/enviroknot persist certain disputed sections should be added. See edit history. Call to re-protect. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber and Jihad

Yuber appears to be guilty of 3RR already at Jihad. Do you wish to report it or must I?Enviroknot 00:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You did the same. Yuber edited many things, it is not considered 3rr. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Need I show you the diffs?Enviroknot 00:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has been reported.Enviroknot 00:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CltFn/Diglewop

Personally I think the book pages should be unprotected. If CltFn or someone else wants to write actual articles, they should be able to. If all they do is put in the TOC and a few quotes again, we can always redirect it. If you're interested in helping to deal with some of CltFn's POV contributions, I think you should feel free to edit. Someone else can always take care of admin stuff. I do like your suggestion that he pick an article and work on that. Rhobite 21:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up to you

Thanks for unprotecting the various book pages you had locked yesterday. I want to make it known upfront what my intentions are.

  • I intend on undoing the redirects of the book pages you redirected yesterday.
  • As there is no prohibitions from wikipedia (or US copyright policy under fair use) on quotes and table of contents I will also include those in my edits using my own judgment.
  • I intend on restoring the chapter lists that you blanked out on various pages as there is no copyright basis for their removal under fair use.
  • I do not consider any of my edits set in stone and they are fair game for discussion , and changes based on consensus on the talk page.
  • If I create a stub with quotes and a chapter list please realize that it is just that, a stub . All articles start with some sort of skeleton upon which further material gets added.
  • It is understood, that wikipedia policy is to be followed.

--CltFn 23:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin based on you comments on request for arbitration , I see that you are over-reacting to this. Are you confusing me with other revert warriors or something?? I am not , I have never violated the 3RRs, and if my inserts violate NPOV I am amenable to changes. The point is that if some inserts are within the parameters allowed by wikipedia policy , I see no reason why I must refrain from them just because some other editors do not like the implications. --CltFn 00:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 01:06, Jun 23, 2005, Ed Poor blocked CltFn (expires 04:06, Jun 23, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (NPOV violations, harassing admin) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe later...

... I'm going home in 8 minutes, and I don't edit Wikipedia at home (I have no Internet connection there - by design). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Hi Sarah. I have no problem with you protecting the page if you think it necessary. If I see the page being reverted again today, I'll do it myself. I'm keen not to protect it on the trolling version. I think unprotecting was the right move though, as there has now been a reasonable compromise created, and the only remaining problem is the trolling. Cheers, and thanks for respecting my decision. smoddy 08:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about us lot? Messing about making some weird free encyclopedia thing... Can't we see that it's doomed to failure?! I have a feeling that a lot of people are getting tired with Eyeon's trolling, and there would be a lot of support for any blocking action. I don't really care for the opinions of trolls. Especially not poo-fixated ones. smoddy 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just made that point on the anon's talk page... I would add sockpuppets to my above statement. smoddy 22:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PA 103

I've replied on my talk page. -- FP <talk><edits> 09:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please let me know when you have finished working on the article. As I suggested, you might want to create new articles and reduce the size of the article. We would like to discuss what new articles should be created. You can leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. SNIyer12, 15:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shebaa farms stuff at Hezbollah

So, were you planning to put it back? Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind words about my photographs! I always appreciate it when someone takes the time to check out my work. Rhobite 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon vandal

Actually, I blocked the IP for a few hours to cool it down; vprotection might not be necessary. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll at Talk:Terrorism

I've put together a little poll at Talk:Terrorism regarding the "lone wolf" section. Your input would be appreciated. Thx. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BrandonYusufToropov

Aside from genuinely believing that he'd make a steady admin (he's been subjected to tremendous harrassment, and kept his cool admirably), I think that the presence of Enviroknot and Klonimus, as well as some of the other usual suspects, voting against him indicates that there's a strong anti-Islamic element to all this. I agree that the circumstances of his nomination were peculiar, but that in fact has little to do with him (more with the lapse in judgement of Ed Poor) or his fitness. I'm not suggesting that you change your vote (it's pretty clear that his nomination is going to fail), only explaining my concern, and the reason for my question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The presence of the usual Islamists in his support is an indicator the other way. I wouldn't recommend myself for Admin and I don't think he should be either. Then again, I've seen enough out of you and Mel to indicate that neither of you should be trusted with that sort of power either.Enviroknot 00:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You wouldn't recommend yourself for admin? LOL!! At last, some intelligence! SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I was trying to help by archiving the "crap" (old disputes and personal attacks.) I can't believe how rude your message was. The Wikipedia engine said the page was too long, I was doing what it told me to do. What else am I supposed to do? LittleRedRidingHood (talk · contribs) aka Eyeon (talk · contribs) aka Fecologist (talk · contribs) aka Niglet (talk · contribs)