User talk:SlimVirgin/archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] The protection on Don't Tread on Me

Thanks for protecting the page. Yeah, that was me who requested for the protection earlier at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Mike Garcia | talk 2 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

[edit] The latest

Image:Gene wilder.jpg
Hi, I am new! -- El_C

Check out this new user, User:Cognition. He's even got a gallery of Beast-men! Cheers, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Your incessent pro-LaRouche propaganda sickens even me, SlimVirgin! ... What? El_C 2 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)
I'm one of the avocado-fascist evil Beastwomen, didn't you know. Hey, good to see your name on my talk page. You've arrived just in time for the party. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 05:49 (UTC)
I did? Nice! Where all the white women at? El_C 2 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)
I'm here, honey. I'll try to make up for being the only one. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 06:00 (UTC)
YASE! Be creative! Can you dance? Can you prance? Sing off-key? El_C 2 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
I'm extremely flexible, yes; and double-jointed if that helps. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 06:14 (UTC)
Heh, good answer! Oh, it helps, it helps! :) El_C 2 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

You

For working around the clock to defend fascism and synarchism, I hereby award you the "rabid dog beast-man Barnstar." Keep up the bestial work. Cognition 2 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

Thank you. I will treasure it. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:25 (UTC)
I must earn the rabid cat one! Cats win!! El_C 2 July 2005 07:33 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

When will the feces page be unlocked? Why is it locked up?

No, you did indeed lock it. The page protection log says 19:27, 26 June 2005 SlimVirgin protected Feces (reverting and trolling). No notice was placed on the talk page or on the page protection page, please unlock it.

[edit] Excuse me?

You said you didn't know why the Feces page was locked, and you are the one who did it, so why not unlock it? Floopy 2 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

[edit] Help! hijacked by Laroucher!

My FAC of Carl Friedrich Gauss is being hijacked by a Laroucher!(cognition) Can you help me determine if his objections are valid, and if not, remove them? Thank you! Borisblue 2 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)

  • Many thanks! I'd award you a "barnstar" if I could figure out what a barnstar is. Borisblue 2 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation.

I have just listed the photo "Temple of the Slim Virgin" used in the Prambanan article as a copyright violation. Bjorn

[edit] Urchid

user:Urchid is back to his usual POV pushing (biased) edits in the Islam article. He is deleting almost all the links from the article and reinserting an "Islam and Slavery" section even despite having a dedicated article of the topic and months of discussion on the Islam page. Isn't he also user:CltFn among others? --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

More of the same reverting to ancient article versions going on in the Islam and slavery article despite frequent warning. One only needs to see his talk page to see what type of editor he is. Please help deal with this. Thanks.:)--Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 15:19 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Check your email. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 20:45 (UTC)
Just to notify: I responded to your email. Thanks once again. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 22:24 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski article

Hi SV-- would you mind taking a moment to unlock the Dembski article while I add it to a category? Let me on my Talk page when you're ready. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Thanks SV! FeloniousMonk 3 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

[edit] Your question to CltFn

The answer is no, why do you ask? I am starting to wonder whether that no account IP you kept accusing me of being was not a set up by that Islamist Anonymous User account, he is such devious manipulative character. By the way , you seem to be awfully activist against my edits , are you taking a partisan position in regards to edits that deal with your islamic faith? --CltFn 3 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Notice how this user uses exact same terminology as Urchid even though he and I have never confronted one another. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 03:21 (UTC)
Hmm I don't suppose you did not set me up in the post above titled Urchid?. Al-Taqya won't work with me.Your little deceitful and cunning tactics are for people who don't have a clue about Islamists.Oh by the way , why did you drop into this discussion , out of the blue perhaps?--CltFn 3 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, keep em' coming. Btw, I have no idea what you are talking about, all I know is you are accused of being other users. Aside from that I am sure SlimVirgin would be delighted to see what you are writing here. :) --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 03:38 (UTC)
Right you have not idea, no sweat, don't worry about it, and you don't know what Al-Taqya is either, right. Reminds me of Mohammed Atta's last words to the passengers before ramming the plane into the World Trade Center, "remain calm , and every thing will be OK" I know that you just cannot help yourself, lying through your teeth is your religion and you do nothing else but lie and that sadly is your incurable disease. As a matter of fact , I could probably take anything you say , and the exact opposite would probably be the truth. --CltFn 3 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
Okay thanks again. Btw, al-taqya means "deception" and you have been doing plenty of it, but I won't make conclusions as I don't desire to go into a conflict with you. I am sure SlimVirgin has discovered who you are by now. Once again thanks for the personal attacks I am sure they will serve a purpose. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:06 (UTC)
You are very welcome. Its been a pleasure discussing this matter with you and I am indeed looking forward to the exciting collaberation we will be having in the future in wikipedia.--CltFn 3 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
Yes surely. Who knows what the future holds, but with collaberation between you, SlimVirgin and me I am sure it will be quite exciting. ;) --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:47 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Cool as a Cucumber Award
Cool as a Cucumber Award

Hi, Slim! It's good to be back. :)

Wow, I keep running into your great edits all over the place. You are quite simply among the finest Defenders of the Wiki we have ever had. I was going to award you a barnstar to that effect, but I see that Willmcw beat me to it. So here is my three stage proposal:

  1. First, I hereby award you the Cool as a Cucumber Award, for remaining cool when the situation gets hot.
  2. Second, I offer unto you the opportunity to Tote the Ranks. The pay is lousy, but the work is nonexistent. ;-) Any "rank" strike your fancy?
  3. I see that we have no images of Loro Jongrang, the slim virgin. I shall now endeavor to scour the Internet for this most elusive (public domain or GFDL-released) image. The Slim Virgin must have representation!!!

func(talk) 3 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)


Hi! Troop mascot is brilliant, and not to worry, the mascot enjoys a very high ranking in the organization. Indeed, you can choose anyone on the list and give them an order right now...and they have to do it! Really! ;-)
You are entirely deserving of Cool as a Cucumber. Your patience with POV warriors is really quite astonishing. :)
Congratulations on the big 12,000. In another 5 or 6 years, I might get up that high as well. ;-)
P.S. Flexible and double-jointed helps me too. ;-)
func(talk) 4 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
Hey, get your own sockpuppet, Mister! I command this one to do my bidding. El_C 4 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
And does she obey you? SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 04:33 (UTC)
No, not really, but that is what makes it all the more interesting! Which is to say, schizophrenia is a harsh, but invariably coloruful mistress! El_C 4 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
I've found her to be quite wayward myself, actually, which truly is a schizoid experience, given my relationship with her. She's worth it, though, overall, mostly. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 04:42 (UTC)
Indeed. Still, though, the superego says: if she can't be rigidly forced to fall in line with chain of brutal command, she might become a risk. A threat. A target. If I may paraphrase Chief Clancy Wiggum: her personality may need to be broken, then built up again, then broken, then built up, then broken, and if we still have time, built up, again! El_C 4 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
You're another LaRouchie, in other words. Many before you have tried; none have broken her yet. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 05:11 (UTC)
Nothing like them, I'm the real thing. And as such, I am precluded from taking advantage of your misconception, and rather am obliged to inform you of its inherent weakness. Incidentally, I'm just about to watch Nimród Antal's Kontroll (inspiration?). Be good during my (uneventful, or else!) absence, I command you! El_C 4 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
Ought implies can. I only ought to be good if I'm able to be good, and you should know by now that I'm not. You'd get bored with me if I were a goody two-shoes and you'd cast me aside, as you did with the others. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 05:25 (UTC)
Ah, linearly, metaphysically, perhaps. But that is backwards-looking; the unity and identity of the contradiction —determinism-indeterminism– implies an interrelation, intercourse, interconnecdeness, interdependence, and interpenetration of reciprocal opposites: particular-universal, finite-infinite(simal), you get the picture, but its overall integrity depends on the frame, if I may (and I will) further stretch this analogy; or can it be counted as one? It's true, though, that I do get bored easily, but not so much at the sound of my own voice(s)! The movie was intense, thank you for asking, and good soundtrack. Recommended. Anyway, so how good were you? [In advance:] Oh, that's good! At ease; as you were. El_C 4 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting page you are partisan in

You are deleting pages that you yourself are partisan in. Not good for an admin. If you had read my suggestion on the Islam talk page you would have understood why the new page.--Urchid 3 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question

I want to add a few pictures to the Judy Chicago page and her work, The Dinner Party. I intend to get them from Mark Harden's Artchive (http://www.artchive.com). I'm wondering if something like that is legal? Again, thanks for the prompt responses and the unhealthy amounts of help!! CharlesZ 4 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

We seem to have a new template that is really screwing with the sites formatting. See Template:TOCright. I have listed it on WP:TFD. To see how it is causing problems, see Daniel Pipes. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibitions on metric units, even if dual

You may want to weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Prohibitions on metric units, even if dual. Rl 4 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

[edit] More images help!

If you look on the Greek statue page I made, the image is licensed as 2D art under that tag. How does one make it 3D art or sculpture?? Thanks!

Also, the Greek art section is in need. Do you know how I can get in touch with anyone who might want to help? Thanks!!

Edit: It appears Greek statue would suit better in a new page Sculpture of Ancient Greece...but I have to merge it...how can I delete Greek Statue and merge the contents with the contents of Sculpture of Ancient Greece??

[edit] Russell

Slim, I am glad you've protected Bertrand Russell, as I put a lot of work into this some time ago. I have never paid much attention to LaRouche, but the insertions of his apostle caused me to investigate and to read LaRouche's diatribe on Russell and others, and, as with so many things, he completely fails to comprehend Russell's views on society or philosophy. Judging by the near incoherency and infelicity of expression on LaRouche's web site, I suspect he could never grasp Russell's techincial work, so I find it most amusing that he would comment on it.icut4u

[edit] My good self

If someone wants to write an article about me they are free to do so, and it will be up to other users to decide if I am "notable" enough to merit one. I neither can nor should intervene in that discussion. Having said that, if there is going to be an article it needs to be accurate. The article written by Cognition is wrong on two points, as one would expect from a LaRouchist. First, I was never a member of the CPA-ML. I was a member of its youth arm, the WSA, for about two years (1971-73). Second, neither Michael Danby nor I are "neoconservatives," or indeed conservatives of any kind. I am a member of the ALP and consider myself a social democrat on economic issues and a liberal on social issues. I am fairly "hawkish" on foreign policy issues (I supported the Iraq war), but that doesn't make me a conservative. I will have to leave it to you how to handle this matter. There is some biographical material here if that is of assistance to you or other editors. Adam 5 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

Slim, you say see the talk page but it seems you didn't look there yourself most recently? [1] Some parts of the paragraph do need clean up but outright deletion is inapproriate. They form the foundation for Churchill's essay and evidence or basis for much of his essay.

I am generally ok with your other edits to the intro, and I think the Ward Churchill quotation that 9/11 was "chickens comming home to roost" is the most accurate way of summarizing Churchill's argument, but technically, the controversy started and centered (perhaps illegitimately) around his "little Eichman's" comparison. I kind of liked the quotation-less intro better myself, or, we can perhaps work harded to present the history of how the controversy started without its desired presumption inducing effect and be neutral at the same time otherwise. What do you think? zen master T 6 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)

[edit] Points of view

Image:Vulpes zerda sitting.jpg
My contributions is sitting. El_C 7 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

On another page, you wrote:

As I've said many times, no one is being locked out because of their views, but because of disruption. We do have solid majority opinion against LaRouche POV being inserted, but there's no reason that any editor's time should be tied up having to deal with it. However, as you seem to want to do it, you're welcome to volunteer; what you can't do is volunteer on behalf of anyone else. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 02:55 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I've been frequently described as having the most extreme views of anybody at Wikipedia, and yet I've never been blocked or RfA'd. My views are possibly the mirror opposite of the LaRouchites - being that I'm a Unificationist - and yet I'm:

  • Admin of the mailing list (again)
  • A bureaucrat - I'm the one who promoted Cecropria, who does nearly all the work now
  • Chairman pro tem of the Mediation Committee.

That's because I don't disrupt; I harmonize. I've figured out how to describe everything from the NPOV - with a few exceptions which I simply avoid.

I don't really think there's a danger from blocking site access to disruptive users. All they have to do is follow the civility and NPOV rules - which are NOT that hard to follow. Anyone who tries, can pick it up in a week or two. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 01:49 (UTC)

Sorry for eavesdropping: I'm wondering which of the two types of Unificationists listed on the disambig page that you are, because there is quite a big difference between being a moonie and wanting to unite Australia. :) func(talk) 7 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
Uncle Ed is an adherent of the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Moon. Surprise, SV! I dropped by to see the nice colors on your user page. Great job! Tom Haws July 7, 2005 19:37 (UTC)

[edit] IP Tracking on Registered Users

You claim that a few Wikipedia users are the same person. Is there any place to check the IP address used for a certain edit by a user? I'd like to see this myself, if possible. Thanks. ^_^ Gemini6Ice 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

[edit] Something you might want to look into.

I'd like to get at least one admin watching this...Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Túpac Amaru II. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 05:06 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry But I don't Believe and Trust You Anymore

If you remember me I sent you an e-mail before and you said "I don't have any idea about that thing but if I find someone I could... etc." or you said a thing like that. Whatever, I see no changes, now I think that Wikipedia is a propaganda tool against the SOCIALISM , KEMALISM and all of the other BEST ideologies to save the COLONISED AND POOR NATIONS and to make the world a better place without POORNESS and WAR. wikipedia is not an ENCYCLOPEDIA , wikipedia is a propaganda tool in the hands of IMPERIALISM ,and there are racists people, administrators in wikipedia against the Turks and some other Middle-eastern and Asian nations, I don't want to be a part of this ABOMINATION, I am asking you now how can I DELETE MY ACCOUNT in Wikipedia? Or I request to DELETE MY ACCOUNT. Or can you tell me anyone to talk about DELETING MY ACCOUNT in Wikipedia if you don't have any idea about that thing again? And don't worry , over 200 million people will learn that what Wikipedia is? And what wikipedia is not? DOWN WITH IMPERIALISM!!!! -- aozan

Yeah, Sock it to The Man! --Irishpunktom\talk July 8, 2005 14:03 (UTC)

[edit] Spy satellites reading newspapers

Hi there - you wanted to reinsert the text at the Pan Am 103 article claiming that spy satellites could read newspapers.

1. It's crazy talk. The resolution of a military satellite is secret, of course, but the highest resolution cited by the usual suspects on the web is about 5cm, meaning a 5cm object could be detected.

2. So a journalist mentioned that a spy satellite could read a newspaper. This does not add credibility to the extraordinary claim. There are plenty of journalists with no technical background, and the line sounds like the type of facile, throwaway-line BS that one might expect from a credulous reporter. There has never been any evidence presented that a spy satellite can read a newspaper.

3. The claim has nothing to do with the Pan Am 103 disaster and does not add to the article. It only detracts from the article, because the claim is so crazy. It makes one wonder what else in the article is incredible hyperbole.

That's why I removed the line. Regards - Tempshill 8 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)


[edit] Unlocking the Islam page and the Islam Slavery page

  • There is no real dispute on those pages,so the lock is pointless and I find it interesting that you conveniently lock the version that you support.
  • Is it true that you are a Sunny Muslim? --Urchid 9 July 2005 00:47 (UTC) [later corrected to Sunni]

I'm sure that if SlimVirgin were a Muslim, she'd be a sunny one (though she might cloud over a bit when people aimed ill-judged and bigoted remarks at her). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mel Etitis and Urchid,
Every human can believe what he/she wanted to, no body can discuss someone because of her/his religion, why doesn't anybody discussing someone's Christianity or Judaism, how can you describe someone as something without her/his permission, how can you know someone's religion? Please look to this page: secularism maybe this page helps to change your decisions against the religions of the people -- aozan

??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Aiken

Well, Slim, I'm again having quite a problem with an article I came to originally because of an RFC (when will I learn my lesson?). You helped out so much with PJ.com that I thought I'd contact you to see if you're interested in this one. I originally came to the article because several anon users (probably Aiken fans) kept removing a brief, NPOV paragraph about pop culture speculation that Aiken is gay. Apparently, Aiken's fans really get incensed about the rumor. Anyway, we got a good, ~4-5 editor consensus to keep, but there suddenly was an influx of anon users from different IP's reverting only that information. I suspect someone posted a message on a fan forum somewhere and the floodgates opened. Anyway, I finally posted a request on RFP and someone protected the page for a couple weeks. That stopped it for a month maybe. Suddenly it's started up again, although now the dispute seems to be over whether to include a link to a fan group called "Openly Clay," which is basically a forum for Aiken fans who think he's gay and are fine with that. Now we have a new phalanx of anon editors coming to erase the information, and a couple who have registered for accounts solely for the purpose of erasing the information (and a couple have left messages on the talk page). Most of them are extraordinarily belligerent and can't seem to understand NPOV. Their arguments for removing the link essentially consist of: we don't like the link because they talk about the Aiken/gay rumor. It's devolved now into ad hominem attacks (mainly against me, somehow), and one user (which I have reported on WP:3RR but which hasn't been acted on) that just took a vandal comment from my userpage and then reposted it on the talk page. I'm sort of at a loss at this point; reported on RFP but no action yet. Understand if you're too busy to take a look, but thought I'd run it past you just the same. Thanks in advance either way. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:59, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Willmcw just protected. Thank goodness. Still welcome your thoughts on a resolution. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:23, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, Slim :)

The images on your user and talk pages always make me smile. Long time no talk.

I've left the following message[2] with El_C regarding the Wareware Arb Com process, which includes a link to my comments on the Arb Com talk page. I'm not stewing about this; this kind of thing (like Wareware's racism) is old hat. I've long since moved on. But in archiving stuff on my talk page, it occurred to me that some loose ends required attention.

Not the least of which is a thank-you to you. I very much appreciate your helpfulness and concern in the Wareware matter -- and your time. Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 07:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animated flag images

Hi!

I noticed you uploaded the animated flag images. You labelled them as PD, but 3DFlags.com's terms of use only allows their use with credit and a link, which isn't PD. The site for the UK flag (which you labelled as fair use) says that they're used freely but they ask for a link back to their site. Unfortunately, that license isn't very clear, either. It's better for us to have images with clear licenses. Are there any truly free sources where you could find these images? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] have a gander?

I posted this on Mustaffas talk page too, but the more invokved the better the piece (In theory anyway) Wondering if you can have a gander over at two revert wars Jayjg and I are involved in. Al Andalus (Muslim Spain) and The Sword of the Prophet. You can check the talk pages to see his rationale for the constant reverting, because I don't understand why he's doing it, but, help is appreciated! regards - --Irishpunktom\talk 19:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am sorry I was slow to find rule violation info you requested, but I'm new...

SlimVirgin,

You asked me for info regarding the 3RR situation, and I feel I may have been prejudiced by my slow response.

As you recall, I made the claim that i felt that this user violated the "spirit of the rule," even if not the "letter" by creatively trying to get around a "technical" revert. Well, he protested along those same lines, and apparently it got by us. But, he got smart with me and demanded I cite the rule, and the exchange that follows -and posted in the 3RR page, clearly shows he violated a rule that I had imagined ("spirit of the law") but did not know really existed (e.g. “gaming the system“).

(Here is in pertinent part below the exchange: Have i lost my argument because I was slow?)

  • Duck, at this diff at 23:22, 10 July 2005, you asked me for answers, and I answered you at this diff at 01:57, 11 July 2005. You raise a point that i had not considered, because I've only been here a few months and didn't see the 3RR page's fine details. I'm recopying it here because SlimVirgin wanted clarification of whether you violated the rules: --GordonWattsDotCom 02:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

…but the sup tags weren't [in the original version], and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version… So let me see if I have this straight. In the version before my first edit (under discussion) there were no <sup> tags. I edited that version by adding <sup> tags (not changing them). When I did that, it "reverted" to a different version, which now even I can't understand. It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion. That is one magic concept. Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened. Duckecho (Talk) 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(quoting Duck in italics) "It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion." Bingo! You got it. "Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened." OK: "This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording." Cite: 3RR#Enforcement, 4th Paragraph, 2nd Sentence. Trying to make a complex revert like you did almost fooled SlimVirgin, but thanks to your smart remark to me, I looked up the exact cite, and I shall bring this to her attention. While I don't think that you will get blocked this time, I am certain that you tried to "game the system."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


(He also had more to say, which I have not recopied here, but I don't want to clutter your page; The full account appears at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Duckecho )

--GordonWattsDotCom 02:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • PS: We've tried mediation, and some points upon which we agree are being violated or are in the process, and that is covered in the more lengthy version -and poor Uncle Ed is being worked to the bone. We need more help. ArbCom maybe? I say this because you may think that this is an edit dispute, but the rules say otherwise. Do I not act fairly in my laying out of the facts?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Good luck

You will need it trying to sort this out. The above is but a microcosm of what the rest of the editors on the Terri Schiavo Talk page and article project have had to deal with since his arrival. A complete and utter lack of ability to follow a point, and posts that verify Lenin's precept of quality vs quantity that "quantity has a quality all its own." Uh, half-truths enter into the picture, too. By the way, my apologies for even posting this here. I believe it is essentially unethical to plead a case here on a talk page, and I won't plead it here, but this user spews volumes all over the place and I don't want my voice lost. Duckecho (Talk) 03:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not pleading my case here. I am only making a statement that there were new things I found and posted on the 3RR page, by making reference to them; This is reasonable, because new material may be overlooked unless one is looking for it.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To pet or to pet, that is the non-question, whether it isn't...

Image:Vulpes zerda front view.jpgImage:Vulpes zerda in Heidelberg zoo.jpgImage:Vulpes zerda sitting.jpgImage:Fennec001.jpg
Image:Vulpes zerda yawning.jpgImage:Fennec007.jpgImage:Fennec008.jpgImage:Vulpes zerda dozing.jpg fin. El_C 10:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luding Bridge

Erm, you asked for what Jung Chang said and I posted it ages ago. Could you give some sort of response on that, please? Cheers John Smith's 11:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol, you were the one that asked for the "evidence", so I supplied it and assumed that you would look at it :) John Smith's 19:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Lao Wai is editing Jung Chang even after the special edit you did. Could you keep an eye on things and enter the conversation if necessary. I fully accepted it needed to be edited, but what's the point in you editing it if user after user comes along and wants to change it to suit themselves? John Smith's 19:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to hit the panic button. We're starting to have some sort of discussion. John Smith's 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (Message below transplanted from my page, that is Gordon Watts' page)

Hi Gordon, thanks for your note. I'm afraid I didn't follow it entirely, but the important point is that we can only block for technical violations of 3RR; the gaming-the-system thing is a bit nebulous. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply; I don't know the ins and the outs of Wiki-worlds, but I take your word. The matter was not real complicated: It was a simple "edit war," using edits instead of reverts, but to the same end; There were, however, ancellary issues, but hopefully not that which would push Wiki editors off track. ~~ Two other things: #1: A statement: We all (especially you over-worked admins) don't get paid AND have to put up with NONscreened editors. The lack of screening (like one would do for a "regular" job) allows much vandalism!!... and uses up precious human and computing (and financial) resources -plus, as none of are paid, the quality goes down, which I told Jimbo on his page, in hopes my thoughts would improve Wiki quality. #2: A Question: What is the convention for replying? Aphaia, for example, insists it's easier for her to track down my reply on my page (on her watchlist, I guess), but many people prefer answers on their home talk pages (cuz you get a message when someone posts) --with no regard to your preference, where would you have expected me to reply, if I were an "average" Wikipedian? (And, I'll try to do that, as "most do.") Oh, #3: (Bonus Question) which was #1 from my initial complaint: I don't seek sanctions against Duck, and I feel bad he was baited into the edit war, but what would you suggest in our case? Leniency, as Uncle Ed suggests -typical of people already in mediation -so there is less paperwork, or just an informal verbal warning for all of us to be more careful? (Before you answer, please KNOW that I attempted to ask Duckecho about his edits numerous times, but he was silent and kept on keepen on, so that "gamin' the system" is less acceptable here... grr...) Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 13:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

But there are problems with the page, which a copy edit will iron out to some extent, so please allow me to do it, and discuss any edits you disagree with on talk, rather than reverting without reading them.

What makes you think I haven't read them? FuelWagon 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

mistakes like italicizing half of guardian ad litem, but not all of it.
Hey, if that's all you want to do, have at it. But what I read was seriously out of whack with the "copyediting" approach that you insist on describing. FuelWagon 20:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Flowerofchivalry, again

Once again he is using sockpuppets to start revert wars at Nanjing Safety Zone. You and others have warned him numerous times prior to this, so I thought you might be interested in it. I have submitted a 3RR log here. -Hmib 04:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, Hmib is still doing barbarous acts at all over the place, and I'm sorry for his leaving his filth. I think you now understand what kind of person Hmib is.--Flowerofchivalry 07:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Map-Kaliningrad.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Map-Kaliningrad.gif. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}} or {{no license}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its source and/or copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{GFDL}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}} but you need to substantiate your claim by explaining why you think it's fair use. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks. RedWolf 05:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise on Schiavo

Hello, Mr SlimVirgin. Or Mrs SlimVirgin, whatever. I have put a suggestion for a compromise on the Terri Schiavo talk page, because I really don't like all the fussing and feuding. I do think both sides of this newly created hissy fit have been a bit irresponsible. Eh, I'm not writing it again ... go see the darn talk page. Proto t c 08:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I am spending my personal time looking into this, and, as I stated below, I had hoped to "retire." However, as perhaps the most successful litigant on the "losing" side, I felt that my personal experience in the four-fold areas here might help bring balance to this matter. (Four fold: 1-I wrote about this, 2-I was written about a tiny bit, 3-went to court myself, and 4-was involved in the protests / rallies / demonstrations, or whatever you wanted to call them.)
I have not fully reviewed the talk page, but so far, your edits looked OK to me: A few edits that could be classed as "pro" feeding Terri; maybe 1 or 2 that were opposite (balance); and 1 or 2 times you commented but left the opposing item in. (I looked at every single edit from before your first recent edit to current and tried to follow the "chains of thought" of the various editors involved.)
After I finish reviewing talk, I may weigh in on this. Oh, my "most succesful" court case? I was the litigant who was defeated 4-3 in the same Supreme Court and on the same matter where Jeb lost 7-0 twice. You can google me for details:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=watts+schiavo+%224-3%22

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=watts+schiavo+%224-3%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite/search/web/watts%2Bschiavo%2B%25224-3%2522

--GordonWattsDotCom 13:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you should probably see Duckecho's talk page before reading too much into that. Proto t c 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm reverting to my "native" font color of pastel blue, as I usually do in talk (and this helps differentiate me from Proto above). -Anyhow, I wanted to give you all an update: I've read all the edits in the main Schiavo article from your first recent edit (up to a few hours ago; since then, I've been plodding thru talk page, with which I'm almost finished: I'm almost finished with reading ALL the recent talk diffs). I realize the FuelWagon is particularily abusive, but he is harmless and means no real harm by his bad language (that is his way) however, I may take issue with a few of his points. My point to you, SlimVirgin, being: Don't let them rile you up: You are mostly (but not totally) right, as close as I can estimate so far. Hang on: The calvary will arrive soon.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Short Reply (it really 'is short!)

Translplanted from my page: Hi Gordon, thanks for your note. I'm afraid I didn't follow it entirely, but the important point is that we can only block for technical violations of 3RR; the gaming-the-system thing is a bit nebulous. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on your point. I'd say forget the apparent 3RR violation and get on with editing. Regarding where to post messages, I prefer them on my talk page, but others are different. There's no rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I left several points, not all of them totally related, in hopes to merely improve the system (chiefly screening editors, paying the help, etc. improve quality, even if some downsides exist).
  • Also, I made several point in re my prior 3RR violation; I feel stupid if you missed my points. (smile) It was part my fault for making several unrelated points, but in regards to the 3RR, I think you got my point, as evidenced by the fact that you dispensed probably the right amount of discipline that was (I think) appropriate. Thank you.
    • I see some new dispute has occurred in re the late Theresa Schiavo's wiki article. Although I am "retired," I think I'll go on over there to check it out. (I'm "retired" because after having been a VERY major litigant in court for Terri -and almost winning; AND in doing “major” editing in both WikiQuotes and WIKIpedia --I've NOT gotten paid; Time to move on and retire, but I shall look at the new dispute.)--GordonWattsDotCom 10:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You won the context; Hope your opponents have no hard feelings...

FYI, I tallied the points assigned (yes, I know the "contest' theme is probably getting old, and appears combative) -but I objectively looked at all the points and did npt fudge just because some of your edits appeared to support my pro-life POV, but you won in an over-time tie-breaker.

The strength of your victory was your accuracy to facts, and I was glad to have been able to have reviewed the article for inaccuracies a few weeks ago -I previously thought the Schiavo page was honkey dorey and A -OK, but credit is given to NCdave for raising cane, and I took a "closer look," and got more educated.

OK, that's all -the details (and you mande a few preventable mistakes, unfortunately) are in talk; I hope my observations were helpful

NeuroScientist also makes a few good points, but a few times he seems to contradict himself. This paragraph, by NS, for example, contradicts itself. First he says that autopsey DIDN'T find cortical blindness ,and then said it DID, suing different language -huh??

"This is nonsense, of course. Dr. Nelson did not "find" cortical blindness. He found that Schiavo's visual cortex had been severely damaged, such that it was exceedingly unlikely that Schiavo was capable of sight. Cortical blindness is the clinical correlate of severe destruction of the visual cortex. One does not "find" cortical blindness in an autopsy. One either finds it in life through clinical examination, or deduces it in death upon finding a destroyed visual cortex." (written apparently at 05:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC), by NS)

I've been hopping from computer to computer as mine is offline now due to lightening strike, so my hurried bad grammar/spelling is indicitive of such. -later.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flower of Chivalry

re this 3 revert rule infringement, is there any possibility that the anonymous IP addresses were actually not 'Flower', but someone else? I mean, could they be associated with 'hmib' instead? or do they resolve to the area that flower is editing from? If you don't know, is there someone who could look into it before I ask 'Flower' ? Any advice? It will be a lot easier to advocate for the user, if I can be sure he's lying, or if I can be sure he's not. It kinda looks like it could be a frame, judging only by what I know of the original conflict between the 2... since flower is apparently blocked right now, I think it might be difficult to get a fast reply from him. Thanks, sorry to trouble you. Pedant 18:17, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

With the amount of personal attacks and crap he (FoC) is throwing around, he's long overdue for a ban. If I did indeed impersonate as such an unsavoury individual and do some kind of orchestrated framing... I have better things to do.
This is not the first time Flowerofchivalry resorted to such tactics to circumvent 3RR policies. The last time he did Mark confirmed the anonymous IPs as Sprint IPs. I do not know what he did to find this out, but IIRC there are apps that allow you to see where the IPs originate from. Flowerofchivalry claimed somewhere that he lived around the Berkeley area, or somewhere, in CA. I live in Olympia, WA. If anyone knows how to determine the location of a certain IP address, please help out. The IP addresses in question are 68.124.90.72, and 204.210.33.122. However if those are Sprint IPs God only will know where the real user is. This page has the IPs from FoC's last attempt. There is also the possibility that he is editing from school or work. As a token of good will, my WAN IP is 24.17.141.99, it should be static and my ISP is Comcast. (If I suffer any DoS attack shortly after this, I'll know who it's from). I'll ask Mark what he used to determine those IPs' origin.
To be honest, I am also somewhat surprised that FoC resorted to this underhanded tactic... a second time. What I'm even more surprised of, Pedant, is that you casually dismiss the possibility that FoC committed this offense and blame it on me without a single scrap of evidence... from your English skills I'm confident you're not FoC's sockpuppet or anything, but please take a look at his track record first before accusing others. You might know him from real life or whatnot, but please approach this objectively. Thanks. -Hmib 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've replied to your email. Sorry about the delay. Hope it helps. -Hmib 01:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I have replied to your latest email. Good luck. -Hmib 02:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, Pedant. I reversed 68.124.90.72 to adsl-68-124-90-72.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net, 204.210.33.122 to cpe-204-210-33-122.san.res.rr.com, and 24.17.141.99 to c-24-17-141-99.hsd1.wa.comcast.net just for your information.--Flowerofchivalry 07:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I replied all the e-mails. Hmib and Mark wasted you and my time using the false accusations, again and again. --Flowerofchivalry 06:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Just who is wasting whose time is not yet known.
Playing the devil's advocate here, is it possible that the 219 (I think) anon user that kept on vandalising articles and accusing FoC of being a 'fucking jap' is the one responsible? -Hmib 18:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hammesfahr

Ciao bella, good work on Hammesfahr. Have you read his "diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo? If you haven't, you ought to look it up. It'll give you good insight into his methods and why he's held in so much contempt by the medical community. -- Grace Note

That's as may be, but if he is practising "alternative medicine", one ought to take care about allowing his opinion to be stated qua "neurologist". Practitioners of alternative medicine are often derided by scientists not so much for political reasons as because they do not practise the methods of science. As his diagnosis does quite clearly show, Hammesfahr indulged in a kind of interpretive medicine in diagnosing Schiavo. I'm not a neurologist, of course, but I think those that are have questioned his report on that sort of basis. -- Grace Note

[edit] Measurement units

Hi, Slim, you might want to see this. Ciao. Maurreen 05:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who/Whom

'Who' is used as the subject, 'whom' as the object. I don't understand your revert

[edit] Help with page move

Hello SV. GCcarty has done a cut-and-paste move of Mount Erebus disaster to Air New Zealand Flight 901. I wonder if you could help to merge the page histories [or perhaps I should just revert his changes?]. Sorry to be a bother. (P.S. Thankyou very much for the barnstar!) -- FP <talk><edits> 09:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks VERY much, it's looking great. But I think the intention was to move the whole page to Air New Zealand Flight 901. (Which name do you think is the most appropriate? Perhaps I can ask for naming advice on the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.) -- FP <talk><edits> 10:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diatribes

You made a very good point, Slim:

obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of

Can we deal with this by then (1) giving them a clear Wikipedia:No personal attacks block and then (2) protecting their talk page? (If we had to continue talking about the block - everyone but them of course - we could do it on an unprotected subpage.) Uncle Ed 17:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions and Disputes

Hi, it's Joey. Do we always have to propose edits and revisions on the talk page before implementing them into the article? I'm asking primarily due to the RCorrie article. Jeus 20:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I'll try to have some more restraint next time (instead of falling into edit/revision wars). Jeus 21:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Question: What do I do when someone refuses to even *look* at my edits, and insists on reverting pages dozens of versions into the past? I'm talking about the Israeli terrorism page. I'm not breaking the 3RR, as far as I can tell, and I am using the talk page (both of the site, and of the person I disagree with), but I'm not making any progress. Jeus 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have mentioned to Guy that he must adhere to policy on this front. El_C 23:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TOCright proposal

Hello. Since you were part of the discussion of the Template:TOCright template once it was moved from VfD to the MoS, you might be interested in the draft proposal currently posted there. We appreciate any comments and suggestions you may have. -- Titoxd 23:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli terrorism

You seem to have just reverted the page to your preferred version, and then protected it. Before you take such steps, I suggest a careful reading of Wikipedia:Protection policy, particularly #2: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." and #3: "Add {{ protected }} (or {{ vprotected }} for vandalism) to the top of the temporarily protected page and make mention of the protection in the edit summary". - Mustafaa 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Might I ask why you made the page protected? It takes two to start an edit war; favoring one side while dismissing the other side (and Then making the page impossible to edit or revert) seems...wrong, somehow. I hardly think there's a need to lock the page down into one person's version -- that sort of makes "discussing it" on the talk page rather moot; why try to change it if it's still dependent upon someone's overriding opinion? Jeus

For how many days do we vote over disputed pictures? (I'm talking about the one with the girl. It's on IFD at the moment). EDIT: Nevermind. I found it. Jeus 00:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your concern for correct characterization of the death of Rachel Corrie, I note that you reverted the page three times before protecting it. I find it almost impossible to characterize that as involvement solely as an admin. See also m:The Wrong Version. - Mustafaa 00:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I had already looked, and was seriously considering reverting back to the longer version when I noticed you had protected it. Both versions are flawed (why include bulldozers but exclude AI's quotes on killing children?) - Mustafaa 01:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Americanflag.gif

Image deletion warning The image Image:Americanflag.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

Also, Image:Indonesianflag.gif and Image:Spanishflag2.gif. The license from their site doesn't seem to release them into the public domain. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza Strip

Thanks - I really appreciate it! Ramallite (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arabian Gulf protection

Hey there. I wanted to notice you that I unprotected the Arabian Gulf page. Protecting an article "long-term" is pretty much as anti wiki as it can get, we should rather watch out for vandalism and simply revert that as to hinder everyone in editing a page. --Conti|✉ 09:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Such fun

Wikipedia is such fun that sometimes I get too wrapped-up in one endeavor and neglect another. Parallel edits? Yes, if you think it's time, once again, to "build a case". Apply, lather, rinse, repeat. "Shampedia"? -Willmcw 10:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Uthar Wynn 01

Hi Gadfium, I just went to block the above indefinitely, but I notice he's negotiated a shorter block with you. My perception of this user is that he's a troll. He has repeatedly added nonsense to Terri Schiavo, material that constitutes vandalism e.g. these edits [3], he's vandalized a user page with the edit summary "spelling fix," [4], and when I blocked him for 24 hours for it, he e-mailed me in a very contrite, reasonable way, asking to be unblocked early. When the block expired, he went straight back to Terri Schiavo and continued his vandalism, admitting to another user that he knew he was adding nonsense, but that it was "true nonsense." [5] Would you have any objection if I made the block indefinite? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've promised to give him a chance, but if he goes back to his old ways then I would have no objection to your blocking him indefinitely. With both of us watching him carefully, he should be aware that he's on thin ice.-gadfium 19:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
If I may jump in here, I recommend a series of short blocks instead. Some people take longer to learn than others. I teach Sunday School, and one kid took 15 time-outs before he mastered the rules. He then became a model student. Uncle Ed 01:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from A ghost

Slim (or is there something else you prefer?), I noticed that you were involved in a dispute with a number of Users whom I respect. As a member of the Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation effort, I'd like to invite you to join us there. I'd like to understand more of your recent involvement with the article(s). My instict is that something went horribly wrong during my recent abscence, and if we're going to fix it I'm likely to need your help.

Although Duck, Fuel, Gordon and I all make our share of mistakes, I consider these editors my friends. It hurts to see them at each other's throats. Oh, and Duck quit. I'm trying to fix that. But editing his User page postmortem maybe bad taste. I understand you find that comments distasteful, but they are his. Please revert your edit.--ghost 20:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:Your comments:
Slim, I understand some of your concerns about the editing that surrounds the Terri Schiavo page. I am, by nature, a concensus builder. Most people are not. You are partially correct that something was and is wrong. That's why I requested Mediation, and Uncle Ed's been trying to help. Recently, that effort lost momentum, and I believe that led to the set of incidents you found yourself in.
The fact that any User has a strong POV means nothing about their status as an editor. In fact, those with strong POVs maybe more valuable because they bring something others cannot. And the number of edits a User or an Anon has/hasn't made is equally irrelevant. They are Users and should be treated as equals. To do otherwise undermines the principle of the project. We need people who know alot about subject we might not know or care about.
Finally, Users view their User Pages as personal space. Personal space is sacred in human culture. If Users can't vent there, where should they? And do we have the right to invade that space? I understand your concerns about personal attacks. They don't belong in the articles, and must be avoided in Talk pages. But your rights end at the tip of my nose. And mine, yours. Deletions in the User space of others should be avoided at (almost) all costs.--ghost 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I greatly hesistate signing up for a zero-tolerance anything. For the simple reason that it sacrifices the need for common sense on the altar of some noble priciple. Principles, no matter how noble, are not as important as people. The dispute over what some have called personal attacks, and what others consider a refutation of erroneous facts, is a good example of this. These editors you've labeled inexperienced don't initially seek to undermine the work of anyone. A zero-tolerance policy would suggest we jettison scientific professionals who are following the standards of peer review in their fields. Not everyone plays with others as well as you and I might. And some professionals are taught not to.
You and I seem to be very close to agreeing on alot. Where we differ seems to be in how we give others the benefit of the doubt. And I mean all others, even the ones that cus us out. (BTW, FuelWagon and I have gone round and round before. My respect for him is based on the quality of his work. Not his behavior.) What worries me is that not enough effort is given to examining the Man-in-the-Mirror. We all need to do this more.--ghost 22:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Slim, I know about the abuse. I've been the target before from both sides. On Talk:Terri Schiavo and elsewhere. I am working to fight it from a different approuch. One of inclusion, rather than enforcement. I have to disagree with you about its on two key counts:
1) "Taking your lumps" is part of the risk we open ourselves too whenever we enter into any public debate. I am also concerned about editors being intimidated and was (prior to my absence) working to get those voices heard. But it's unrealistic to expect the world to follow our personal standards of conduct. And imposing those standards on others is immoral.
2) There are some people who don't see this behavior as inapproprate. Having worked in the hearts of major cities, the language and behavior here is tame. If we find it offensive, then it shows us the need to put ourselves in the other persons shoes. And in those shoes, the behavior you've identified is not only appropriate, it's demanded.
I look forward to working with you as well. But we cannot allow ourselves to become that which we fear. I propose we demonstate how to do it the right way by embracing the editors on both sides, and guiding them forward. Exclusion is not the way.--ghost 04:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I saw you edit of your edit on Duck's User page. Thanks, it shows character.--ghost 04:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Re:PVS Intro
That was a recent edit. (It occured while I was absent) You may want to look at this version which was what had been agreed on on Talk. The Talk page does work, but sometimes those efforts get unwound by others.--ghost 05:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone else has disagreed with your edits on User:Duckecho. Since I have no idea if this the Duck-ster himself, I didn't think it appropriate to revert you. However, would you do me the favor of reconsidering your position on editing another, possibly retired, User's page. I understand your concerns about personal attacks. However, I still believe that someone's User page is the page they should be able to vent. Also, editing the page of an inactive User just strikes me as morbid. I'm not asking you to agree with me. Just to give the guy his space. (BTW, if you're thinking the Anon is a sockpuppet of me, it's not. Your trace will find I'm behind the firewall of a major financial institution, unless I'm at home.)--ghost 18:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection requested

Hi Slim! I like your page a lot; it has some fascinating information and good advice. I'm writing to you for help protecting an Wikipedia page. Without going into detail, a user has taken the stance that I am the same person as an anonymous IP (registered in Hong Kong). While this is simply untrue (as a reasonable comparison should make clear), the user has continued to attack he and I on his user page. I tried every avenue to resolve the situation to no avail. As some people won't listen to reason, I've decided not to let it bother me as I believe the facts speak for themselves.

Having said that, I made a mistake in trying to resolve the "sockpuppet" dispute. In an attempt to be very honest about my editing locations, I disclosed both my home and work IP addresses to the user making the allegations, a moderator, and the user in Hong Kong who is alleged to be me. Subsequently, the person going after me placed redirects on both IPs to my personal profile (RJSampson). I didn't change the redirect on my home IP (I truly have nothing to hide), but as I have resigned from my present job to start a new one next week, I erased the redirect on the work IP (66.179.35.4).

I informed the Legal department here of the situation and how Wikipedia works, and they're not too happy with me, to say the least. They told me to put a disclaimer on the user page of the IP address stating them as the registrant. I did so. (On a side note -- The user who made the mistaken sockpuppet accusation seems to be having a field day with this). Is there anyway that my former work IP page can be protected from future edits? I would like very much to separate as amicably as possible with my employer, and I thought it would do no harm to ask a moderator for help.. If I can show the Legal dept that the page cannot be edited, I'm sure that would help my transition between jobs go smoothly. RJSampson 18:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. The lawyers are finally satisfied! RJSampson 18:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi again Slim. Once again, I appreciate your help. It really seems to have upset the user I mentioned in the above message, as I had to remove the following text from the now protected IP talk-page:
"I have never heard of such a stupid thing in my life! User:SlimVirgin you are being played by this User:RJSampson. I can't believe you are allowing someone to copyright an IP address like this. You've made a bad decision and set a bad precident! Have you ever read some of the BS that this guy has been writing ot just to me but to other users? Maybe you should, he lies. Carr 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)"'
Clearly, this person has it out for me personally, and quite badly at that. And I would invite you to read any of the "BS" that user is referring to, if you're concerned about that statement. I just want to assure you I was being perfectly serious and certainly not "playing" you, and I strive to always be honest. This user does not appear to know the correct meaning of "copyright" as it were. Anyway, I feel bad that me asking you for help has incurred attacks from that individual upon you as well, but we are grateful for your assistance. RJSampson 20:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Deletion of Username

Hi again... I'm so sorry to keep bothering you Slim. I need to request a deletion of the user ProfitlineInc. It was apparently created in anger for the sole purpose of mocking my request for protection. Yikes, this guy really hates me. I had no idea things would escalate this way, and I'm sorry you're having to deal with this. RJSampson 20:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no fair. I wanted to block him. Oh well, off to clean up his mess... -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for page protection

There is a user on Neofascism and religion who keeps deleting material without engaging in a serious discussion. Could you review the situation and consider locking the page until there is a more constuctive and detailed discission? Thanks. --Cberlet 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ProfitLineInc and User:66.179.35.4

Why did you protect the discussion page for an IP belonging to ProfitLineInc? People have a right to discuss someone who runs around attempting to trademark information. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, there seems to be a vandal afoot over there. Never mind. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mansour

Greetings,

I dont mean to be meddling in or anything, but regarding Mansour's latest reply to you that "either show me the racial insult or shut up", the comment he specifically made was:

"Torke tabloye taze be dorun reside cheghad zer mizane", which appeared on 05:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC) on Afghanistan's talk page.

The first word of this sentence is referring to my ethnicity, an Azeri Turk. The second word is a (negatively) adjective that describes the first word. The insulting tone of it along with the rest of the sentence can be verified by any Wiki Administrator who speaks Farsi. Regards.--Zereshk 05:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

hehe, you *ARE* truly pathetic Zereshk, as I have pointed out to you before. You know damn well that the term "racism" or "racist comment" doesn not apply in Iran in the same way that it applies in countries with true racist history, such as USA and many European countries. The fact that you are using your familiarity with the English language to get a cheap "winning point" out of a lost game, tells us how weak and pathetic you are. In absolutely BEST of circumstances, you can associate "turk" in Persian slang with "ethnicity" but if you really grew up in Iran as you claim you did, you know damn well what it is. And especially "torke tablo", which you are an epitome of one. Given your pathetic edit history of "all image and no substance" I repeat, it's hard to imagine a lower self-respecting Iranian than you. You were born to be a wannabee-western and as such, Iranians like you deserve to be jew-slaves like how most hard-working, tax-paying innocent Americans are today. In the best of circumstances, you will be a second-class American. You get it bright sparkle? Mansour 08:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I am almost afraid to ask what "bright sparkle" means in Iran.... func(talk) 02:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

I hope you are witnessing all these relentless attacks. Mansour also has been attacking others, and is using other aliases and anonymous signatures in the revert wars here and there.--Zereshk 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings,
I hate to keep bothering you on this. But I think Mansour's latest post is illustrative of his intensifying behaviour. See here. He is using an anonymous account. Even if the anonymous user is not him, I would still prefer to report this. Regards.--Zereshk 11:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment requested?


Have a big bright yellow flower day. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Heraclius 3rr revert breach

Clear cut breach of policy.

Regards,

Guy Montag 04:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hare

Wonderful picture of R.M. Hare, a hero of mine. Thanks! icut4u

[edit] RfC

I missed the RfC. In my fairly recent experience FuelWagon and Duckecho are becoming somewhat proprietorial about Terri Schiavo and adopting tactics more appropriate to a flame war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to pay slightly more active attention to the situation. I resolved to keep an eye on Duckecho a few weeks ago, because his extreme reaction rang warning bells, but I've been involved in other stuff and didn't really keep an eye on him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I think that Pan Am Flight 103 should be protected because others users are ignoring our advice about reducing the article size. I'm very serious about reducing the article size. Others are not listening to it. SNIyer12 03:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making RfC for Germen

I'm putting together an RfC for Germen's behaviour on the Islamophobia article and associated pages. Since you have been involved in disputes with this user before I was hoping you might be able to contribute to the draft before I publish it on WP:RFC. I also need a user to second the RfC and confirm that attempts to mediate with Germen have been attempted. I'm not sure if you qualify for this, but if you do your contributions would be most welcome. Axon 12:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FuelWagon apology

SlimVirgin, I launched a number of personal attacks against you that were peppered with profanity. It was indefensible behaviour on my part. I am sorry. I was an ass. I did not protest the resulting block against me because I deserved it. And I promise you, such behaviour will not happen again. I hope this apology will find your honor fully restored. I am sorry. FuelWagon 18:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FoC and another question

Hi, Pedant made an edit earlier on, so uh, any progress?

Also, can you please take a look at Paul Wei, and a series of articles on Chinese Independent Churches. There are parts of these articles, by the same person presumably, that I feel is a bit difficult to establish as facts. eg. his dreadful illness was miraculously cured and so he became a member of their church and Paul received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and started speaking in tongues. (Not the apostle Paul, the Paul in this article.)

I'm not sure how to approach religion articles like this without offending atheists and theists alike, but you have experience editing Islam articles IIRC, so I reckon you must have some idea how to make these articles, um, more wikipedia-like. Thanks. -Hmib 22:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the revert

I wanted FW's remark to get a bit more prominence. This is his turnaround point, and if he makes it he'll start helping out around here. If not, well there's always the door. I'm betting on a complete turn. Let's see, okay, my sister admin? Uncle Ed 01:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

You need to explain why you are quoting the Keetoowah Tribe incorrectly.-----Keetoowah 02:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

She is not quoting them incorrectly. Both the original quote and the one you wish to insert come from the same place: http://unitedkeetoowahband.org/newsarchive.htm . func(talk) 02:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but to take the lame, pathetic one and put that in the Wiki article and masks over the anger and frustration that the whole Tribe feels toward Churchill is a liberal, paternalistic white-wash of the first order. All because SlimVirgin is sympathetic to Churchill's crazy politics. --- --Keetoowah 02:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not because I'm sympathetic to his politics (you don't know whether I am or not). It's because you strongly dislike him, so I'm trying to stop the article turning into something that could be called "Wikipedia hates Ward Churchill, who is barely human," which is where we'd be heading if you had your way. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's not about you. What is should be about is what the Keetoowah Band believes about Churchill. Your quotation misconstrues what my Tribe thinks about Churchill. Wikipedia should be accuracy, not whether you think the mean old Indians are being mean to the Fake Indian who hates the people who were in the World Trade Center on 9-11-----Keetoowah 03:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


My quote came from the band's statement on their webpage. But look, the point is that the article isn't about whether Churchill's a member of the band or not. It's about his essay on 9/11 and the consequences of it. And when we're writing about someone we dislike, we have to pretend we don't dislike them. The article can't come across as a Churchill hatefest. Anyway, I know you know this. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to see you survived the RFC with only a few dings. Stirling Newberry 04:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work'

  • Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query

On the Teri Schiavo mediation page, you stated "The problems at Terri Schiavo are the same - a strong atheist POV being." I don't follow. While I think there are certainly several POVs being pushed on the page, I'm not immediately seeing where atheism is involved in the discussion. I wanted to address this as part of a pattern of statements you've made since your arrival on that article that, while not wrong or even objectionable, just seem a little... off.
Respectfully, Fox1 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response To TheoClarke

Dear TheoClarke: I have never made any pretense to be non-biased. I clearly am biased and I have never, ever claimed to be objective. And that is the difference between myself and most of the Wikipedians that have beeen editing the Churchill article. All of the other Wikipedians either attempt to be objective or they claim that they are objective and they are truly biased. However the problem with this situation is that no one can maintain complete and total objectivity (no matter how hard they try) or they are just faking being objective while they bend some article to the right or the left. I however am being honest and straightforward in with my bias however I try to edit with my personal experience in my mind while I work on the material. In my personal experience I know that he is FAKE Indian and I am going to edit the article with that personal experience in mind. While you on the other hand do not have personal experience with man and you are attempting to maintain what you believe to be objectivity--which may seem admirable--however for someone who has first hand knowledge of the person and has been involved in Indian politics and Indian Country for 30 years I find your attempts to "clean up" the the man's arrogance, smugness, hatred of those who disagree with him to be just another well-meaning but ultimately hurtful actions of the do-gooder liberal paternalism. You find it objective and professional but I find it degrating to the all of the real Indians that are working in the worlds of academics, law, medicine, etc. that deserve the kind of attention that Churchill steals from real, hard-working Indians. You and SlimVirgin's attempts to pretty up the criticism of Churchill makes him look like the date-stamped, pre-approved liberal Indian that the Amy Goodman's of the world want to be believe that all Indians are like--when in truth Churchill is far from the normal Indian. Why? Because he is not an Indian at all but a radical (not even liberal) white guy pretending to be an Indian--his fake Indian-ness provides him with a platform to criticize America and the Left applauds him as if he has some kind of insight into the Native world, which he doesn't. Let's face it. You don't have respect for my opinion. You never have. You and SlimVirgin and the others who have been attempting to take the FAKE Indian issue completely out of the article do not believe the issue should even be mentioned because it puts a dark cloud over the myth that you want to believe that Churchill is: The mighty Indian warrior fighting America, fighting the conservatives, fighting Bush, etc. You and SlimVirgin have more respect for the words of Churchill and his nasty comments that the people in the WTC deserved to die, comparing them to Eichmann, etc than you do with the perspective that quite possibly your mythical Indian just might be a FAKE Indian. Don't lecture me. Of course you and SlimVirgin are biased. I just have the honesty to admit it.-----Keetoowah 20:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
#I am not surprised that SlimVirgin has concluded that you hate Churchill. You have repeatedly denigrated the man as much as his behaviour. One example of this is your repeated use of the appelation "the FAKE indian" [the use of uppercase is yours]. TheoClarke
Since you feel compelled to fight the fight of SlimVirgin, let me response to this nonsense that you have put forward. First of all there is a difference between the words that I have used in the actual article and the words that I have used on this Talk Page. I have never, ever attempted to put into the article the phrase, "Churchill is a FAKE Indian" even though I want to see it in the actual article, but I know that it will never be accepted and is clearly over the top. What we have here, my friend, is an example of a Red herring argument or, if you will, a Straw man argument. You are diverting attention to the comments that I have made on the Talk Page to attempt to censor the writing in the actual article. If we go back to the original issue that brought on this discussion it was about the proper quotation of the Tribe. I never, ever wrote any hateful speech in the article about Churchill I was just attempting to make sure that the article quoted the Tribe properly. If you review the changes [6] [7] it is abundantly clear that I was merely quoting directly from the Tribes's official Web site and I did NOT add my own commentary at all. It is abundantly clear that SlimVirgin repeatedly reversed me even though I was not violating any Wikipedian rules--I was NOT engaging in non-NPOV commentary, I was not engaging in original research or commentary and I was being completely factual, professional, and I was providing a citation for the changes that I was attempting to make. And finally it is abundantly clear that SlimVirgin did not attempt to explain the wholesale reversals and it is clear to me that SlimVirgin, and SlimVirgin admits as much, that SlimVirgin simply liked the sound of the second statement of the Tribe better, not that it was the definitive point of view of the Triber but it sounded less mean--taken out of context of the first statement. Is that the proper way to decide how to quote the Tribe? Being accurate or what SlimVirgin finds subjectively less mean sounding??? That is a non-objective way to decide. It is clearly subjective and bias. It is based upon the standard--if I can loosely use that word--what does SlimVirgin feels today? What mood is SlimVirgin in today?? That is biased and it is NOT objective like your and SlimVirgin like to claim. It was NOT even my comments, but the comments of the Tribe of which Churchill claims to be a member. I want to know where you see in the article or in the changes to the article where I was engaging in "hate speech" Where??? Show me when and where I did this. Also, ask SlimVirgin when and where I was engaging in this behavior--since you have decided to defend SlimVirgin also. The only hate speech that is in the article is the hate speech of Churchill towards the people that were trapped in the WTC on 9-11-2001.-----Keetoowah 21:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Deletion

Could you please delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tlotz? They did not meet the criteria for a RfC. Tlotz is a brand new user and a big POV pusher, but he does it mostly on the talk page. Of course, experienced Users ganged up on him with this inappropriate RfC. They never attempted to resolve any issue with him. In fact, their real beef with him is over edits that they were largely incorrect on. The first thing they did was start a RfC. I attempted to guide Tlotz the right direction, and I think he will go that way. He has never, as far as I know, vandalized a page or intentionally made a bad edit to a page. I started to complain about the actions of the other editors, but my beef with them is very minor and they really didn't do much wrong either except start this RfC. Thanks. --Noitall 04:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the right thing. Sorry it is now a pain in the butt. --Noitall 02:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need help for discussion

Hello, I need your help. I'm working on Talk:Nanjing Safety Zone but even discussion does not work. I'm still trying to solve the dispute by talking. Please take a look at. Your comment/suggestion will be greatly appreciated. I'm extremely busy these days, but I will be back in a few days. --Flowerofchivalry 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Thanks for restoring a measure of order at Jihad. I wasn't sure if you realized that the protected version is the one the sockpuppet/s have been lobbying to freeze in place -- that which parrots the line, and quotes the extremist sources of, the hate site http://www.faithfreedom.org. This state of affairs may, alas, encourage future bouts of vandalism.

How long do you think it should stay in this version? BrandonYusufToropov 17:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

hi sv - on what grounds did you protect Jihad? It is not listed on RFP, and nobody announced they were asking for protection on Talk. I agree that protection was about to happen, but I would still like an announcement when somebody is asking for it. dab (ᛏ) 21:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
it's ok, some cooling down is good for everybody. however, it is a bit frustrating in a case of an edit war where all experienced editors are on one side, and stubborn anonymuses, probably a single person, on the other side, and then have the anon's side protected in our face without warning. We are far too lenient with this sort of crap. Anybody who feels compelled to indulge in an edit war should at least get an account; treating these edits as legitimate contributions is not good policy, imho. but no harm done, let's see how things look in a day or two. regards, dab (ᛏ) 22:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin needed

Hi. I'm having trouble dealing with quite a bellicose POV warrior. If you have time, could you please take a look at the 3RR noticeboard. Thanks. 172 | Talk 17:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This'll make it much easier to start work on an RfC. 172 | Talk 02:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No prob -- and question

I understand.

There is rumbling on the 3RR page about me, I have tried diligently to insert the following there, but am having trouble doing so. Could I ask you to insert it? Or show me what I'm doing wrong? When I click "edit," it says "(section)" and gives a blank box. I'm uneasy about editing, lest I erase what's there.

Hi -- please read this. I would like to request that an admin check the anonymous edits and confirm that they're not me. Possible ? BrandonYusufToropov 17:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR BYT/67.78.186.19/Yuber Perhaps?

Thank you for your quick response on the Jihad page.

In looking through BYT's talk page to deal with my curiosity, I came across a user named Yuber who seems to fit the similar characteristics (calling people "Enviroknot" and making highly biased edits on Islam-based articles) of the vandal 67.78.186.19/EnviroFuck. He seems to have a Request for Arbitration with a temporary injunction against editing in place.

Curiously, this same IP reverted Yuber's own Request for Arbitration with the comment, (RV edits by EnviroKnot) and seems to follow Yuber's tendency to edit almost exclusively to Islam-based articles [8].

My guess is that this Yuber was editing deliberately under his IP address and username "EnviroFuck" to get around his temporary injunction. Is there a way to confirm this and what can be done about it?Existentializer 18:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Page Formatting

I think I managed to fix what had gone wrong in the 3RR report page's formatting.

Can you check it for me? I would like to be sure I have put it the way it should be.Existentializer 19:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious persecution by Jews

Maybe I don't get you, but.. How can you say there are no sources, when the source is stated and is from the most Printed book in world history? --Irishpunktom\talk 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Case for Israel

I'm having a lengthy debate on a Talk: page; I wonder if you might give your opinion, maybe I'm on the wrong track here. [9] Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another dumb question...

SlimV,

Ann Heneghan made the point to me that you might have been able to count only "article" edits, not those to "talk" or "personal user pages," or words to that effect. Is that correct? (Can you use that Admin jedi power to see specific types of edits?)

Of course, the reason we wondered is that she thought that i might have been wrong when I told you that Duckecho made close to 500-600 edits -not 213 as you had suggested ..., oh, here it is, according to Kate's tool, the duck's done "Total edits for Duckecho: 667." Thx in advance for my dumb question (not to be confused with asking Uncle Ed about computer memory).--GordonWattsDotCom 00:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC about Tlotz

I'll jump in and answer your comment on Rhobite's talk page: I can't speak for Rhobite, but I disagree with your removal of the RfC. I could add in a few diffs showing the efforts I made to try to get Tlotz to mend his ways. I made at least one attempt after the beginning of the RfC, and I certified the RfC only when my efforts also proved fruitless. Nevertheless, Tlotz, like so many others, seems to have shown up, disrupted us for a couple days, denounced core policies of the project (in his case, open editing), insulted several people, and then disappeared. Thank heaven for the short attention spans of such people. (As the Wired article stated, "Given enough eyeballs, all thugs are callow.") I'm not inclined to put in any effort to revive the RfC unless Tlotz again graces us with his company. JamesMLane 00:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not relevant to the Tlotz case (we can hope), but for future reference: If an RfC is posted with some indication of attempts at resolution (as this one was), and another editor thinks those attempts were insufficient, it would seem reasonable to treat that situation as different from one in which the original RfC simply ignored the rules. When I looked at Rhobite's RfC, if I had seen no diffs of that type, I would've said, "Whoops, he didn't know he was supposed to put this in, I'd better add it." As it was, however, there was some evidence already there, so I didn't bother. Either the originator of the RfC or one of the people certifying it might add evidence if they knew there was a good-faith question about the adequacy of the original submission. Perhaps, instead of an immediate removal, all those certifying the RfC should be notified that it will be removed in 24 hours if the evidence is not augmented. JamesMLane 00:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it's my legal background. Litigants use pleadings and other devices, like a Request for Admissions, to narrow down what's in dispute and not waste time amassing evidence on uncontested points. If there's more evidence of attempted resolution that could be cited in an RfC, should contributors be encouraged to pile on, just to guard against the possibility that someone might find the current evidence inadequate? As a practical matter, it would seem preferable to give people a second chance rather than go through a deletion and a listing for undeletion. One legal term for the latter kind of exercise is "marching the King's men up the hill and marching them back down again". Anyway, I've had mercifully little involvement with the RfC process, so I appreciate your explanation. I'll leave it to others to think about tweaking the rules. JamesMLane 01:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to undelete the RFC, but I'm going to request that you please stop deleting it too. Cyrius undeleted it so that non-admins could have a look. I previously had much respect for you as an editor. This respect is waning as I see you unilaterally making policy and deleting pages in violation of the customs of the RFC process. Rhobite 02:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perverted Justice

Hi. Yes I am sure. It seems a bit too slantish to me, plus I don't think (most) websites should have Wikipedia articles; I plan on making more noms in the future, this one was chosen early because I have a problem with this website. I tried to post on their forums to tell them to stop using the nonsense term "wannabe pedophile", but they just locked my topic. I don't think it should exist at all, much less an encyclopedia article about it. 24 at 00:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Tlotz

The request on VfU. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Page Opened

This is my first RFC, but since you have had dealings with this person, I invite you to visit: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SNIyer1. Thank you! -Husnock 06:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I filed that protection notice you wanted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#User:SNIyer12. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

however I don't understand why you want the page protected. Please comment on the request at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 07:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I made the note that the user page in question belongs to a sockpuppet, and Slim cannot protect pages she edited on (if she did, she would have violated a rule or something). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Fair enough

You asked that I not "wind up" FW. Fine. You asked that I examine my own mirror. I have, was, and will continue too. And my (admittedly) poor respose last night was a combination of fatigue and shock caused not by your withdraw, but by the edit comment attached to that withdraw. The efforts of myself and others maybe alot of things, but "silly" is not one of them. If you're looking for a cease-fire, you've got one. But like any cease-fire, it takes both sides holding fire to succeed.--ghost 12:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schiavo mediation

Hello, SlimVirgin. I was going to write a proper "response" to the RfC, but it was deleted (I'm happy to say) before I had time. I've got my assignment finished now, and I'm thinking of editing or even creating some different articles. I think what you suggested about trying to edit other articles if you feel you care too much about one particular one is a very good idea.

I'm very sorry that you've dropped out of mediation, but I can understand why. I had private e-mails from two other users who dropped out of Terri Schiavo altogether, and who told me how wearing the atmosphere was. I hope you'll change your mind, or at least that you'll keep contributing to the article itself and to the talk page, if not to mediation. Uthar Wynn 01 has just posted more attacks on the mediation page. Does Wikipedia have an equivalent of the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for reporting personal attacks? Not necessarily that particular attack - I'm sure Uncle Ed will notice it soon enough - but it's something I've wondered before. Regards. Ann Heneghan 17:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy as beauty-contest

I studiously ignored it (as did all the philosophers I know, except a couple who got roped in by the BBC to do a bit of cheer-leading). And the fact that Marx "won" — well, that says it all, really. (I'm told that Locke wasn't even on the short list.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There was dark talk of conspiracies... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that Marx won is a measure of sanity that I did not expect. "Philosophers," heh. :) El_C 07:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email?

Have you still not received a reply from me? Could you check your spam filters?

I was unavailable for a week, but I sent you a very long email last night in reply, I think possibly while you were sending yours. I didn't keep a copy of it, and it was a very thorough response. If not, I'll set up another account and send from there. Seems yahoo! is broken and doesn't work with firefox, so I actually installed internet explorer, and sent using that, but I don't think yahoo? is going to fix soon enough for me to use it any more. I thought it had sent, but... let me know if you didn't get it. Pedant 18:08, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Greetings! Salutations! I am rather new to Wikipedia, but I am fully enamoured of the experience so far. Wow! I love encyclopedias! This is going to be a good one. Great even. It already is in many respects. I have written a few articles already. The ones that I started surprised me when there wasn't an exisiting entry. The edits I have done were to articles that I thought I could help with extra trivia, or just tightening up the grammer and pace. I like having the ability to add something here, to give something to the world of knowledge. On to the topic I wished to discuss: Religious persecution by Muslims. Its an unweildy title. When I started editing it was a pretty messy article. I think however it is a valid subject, along with religious persecutions initiated by any identifiable group, as per my comments on the VfD page. I hope you take another look at this and I would appreciate any comments, suggestions and ideas you may have concerning this. I have stated that I would like to take a crack at the proposed "Religious persecution by Christians" article, a topic I am more informed in, and one where the source material would be easily understood, by me, a humble Wikipedian. Thanks for your time, and thanks for the good work you do around here! P.S. Lyndon LaRouche is a problem here? He is truly a real life Lex Luthor! just kiddin... Hamster Sandwich 06:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You may have missed this

Since you've withdrawn from mediation, you might have missed this post from me.

If it was a genuine apology. I can tell you that I posted the apology to you and Dave around the same time that I posted the "anyone else need an apology?" thing on my talk page. I intended it to be a genuine attempt to clean up any problems I might have with any editors. If you don't believe that, then you haven't really accepted my apology as genuine, and there may be more I need to do. Do you accept my apology as genuine? Or do you feel the need to qualify it because you still doubt it? Is there something more I need to do? FuelWagon 19:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus Question

A question for you. Don't know that you will respond as you never responded when I asked about BYT/"EnviroFuck" nor about my attempt to fix the 3RR report page but I may as well ask, since you were the one who locked the page:

BrandonYusufToropov has instituted a "poll" asking about which version of the page should be used, the incredibly short one which only mentions the Battle of Badr or the one which includes many quotes (some of which he claims are "prejudicial" but all of which are sourced properly) regarding Islamic jurispridence on POW's.

He has then sent a number of messages like [10] [11] [12][13][14][15][16]but only to editors who are known to be sympathetic to his position.

I feel that this is a gross abuse of process: in no way can any result of this poll be called a "consensus" the way he is orchestrating this.Existentializer 15:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

[[17]] BrandonYusufToropov 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Apart from your continued obsession with attacking people, what does this prove? I've made a lot of edits on Vampire, does that make me a Vampire?

You're making a fool of yourself trying to preserve an obviously inadequate and highly POV section on Jihad and you're being plainly obvious, trying to pull a fast one. Consensus requires that all editors on the page be operating in good faith, and I have serious doubts about you since you have YET to provide a source for anything and seem to do nothing but bad-mouth other editors and revert articles to POV versions created by your cronies.Existentializer 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Anon IP

Please check out the Mao Zedong page for 64.19.163.156's vandalism. I'm not sure about the policy but he's vandalized three times now...thanks CharlesZ 15:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)