User talk:SlimVirgin/archive17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RfC

It seems I am in your company now, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noitall. I have much less tolerance for fools (and reactionary reverters, but that was not the case here), so this probably is expected since it is easy to run into them here. I will likely ignore it (that, is really really difficult to do!). --Noitall 03:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Could you tell me how to archive my talk page? Also, if you get the chance, there is that little deletion matter. Thanks! --Noitall 04:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
No, it is for me, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noitall :) --Noitall 05:31, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

2 comments on the evil RfC:

  1. Agriculture was the only one I was in any dispute over, and even his effort did not meet the RfC criteria. He is in fact untruthful for using the words "other users" since I did not get in a dispute with any other editors. He filed the RfC before all the "incidents" happened, which later incidents were me deleting his attacks on my own talk page and on the article talk page. There was no "attack" except for me calling his personal attacks on my own page and on that page a personal attack.
  2. User:-Ril- can't certify. In fact, we never even knew each other before today. He was never on the page in dispute or any other page either. He tracked the RfC down from my talk page after an edit today. He then went on Mustafaa's page and told him to chime in with the RfC. He has no knowledge of anything. In fact, Robert McClenon (obviously no friend) noted the "Question of second endorsement" attributing it to Wiki error. In fact, it was actually vandalism by User:-Ril- in doing such a thing. --Noitall 06:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your assistance. Thank goodness for archiving my talk page, which did not help matters (I know where to find it :) And -Ril- just got 3RRed for some other thing he did, so there is justice in the world :) --Noitall 01:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Larouche

Sorry if those edits weren't quite factual (I disagree!) but I'll try not to do any more funny stuff. Its just I read the article about this old Nazi-wannabe sicko and had to tell the world the truth...I'll just go egg him at one of his rallies or something. Sorry.

[edit] Terri Schiavo

Sorry SlimVirgin, I was logged out and didn't notice. My IP was 80.42.162.228 -- sannse (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Blue Star

The article titled "operation blue star" is protected to a biased pro-indian government point off view, which makes it biased to a unfair point of view. In the spirit of wikipedia I urge you to un protect the article or make it to the version of "thetruth's" edit. As it provides fundamental information related to operation blue star. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundit ji (talk • contribs)

[edit] thanks

for protecting the article. I'm collecting and organizing the discussions of external links in hopes of finding something like a consensus on what does and doesn't belong. If that fails I suppose we can only hope the sockpuppets and proxies give up and go somewhere else. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A London Bomber: Well, well

I see that a newbie user has posted a Request for Mediation because of disagreements with you about editing the article on one of the London bombers. It appears to me that:

  1. He doesn't know much about the dispute resolution process. If he did, he would post a Request for Comments or request a Third Opinion.
  2. He has a limited command of English. He is managing to write grammatically, but he managed to get your gender wrong.
  3. I should probably take a look at the article and provide a Third Opinion to be the usual way dispute resolution is supposed to be done.
  4. He is not a disruptive user or a troll, and will not do any harm.
  5. Given the backlog of the mediation process, the issue should be resolved before the MedCom gets to assigning a mediator.

Robert McClenon 23:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More

I do intend to provide a Third Opinion. Participating in the Wikipedia imposes obligations, which include providing the benefit of wisdom, if one is rash enough to think that one has been given that by YHVH. Thank you for summarizing what he should have summarized. Robert McClenon 04:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tznkai

... has had a calming effect on a perpetually uncalmable page, Jihad. Mirabile dictu.

I have had very little contact with him. I don't even know if he's interested in an adminship, but I was tempted to nominate him for one. Then I thought about some of the baggage I brought to the process last time around and realized I might do his cause more harm than good.

Would you perhaps consider nominating him? Please let me know. BrandonYusufToropov 03:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Excuse me, but what is the 3RR? Thank you. Copperchair 03:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a stupid rule which serves to stifle free debate and gives an unfair advantage to trolls and vandals over legitimate editors trying to protect articles. Adam 06:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danby

I see you have unprotected. Please keep a close on eye on it and re-protect as soon as hostiles return. Adam 06:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. Adam 14:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz Trial

Why do you removed the link to anti-Polonism on Auschwitz Trial?--Witkacy 17:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Polish authorities tried forty-one German war criminals who murdered Poles (in Poland) - there is a significant connection between those two articles.--Witkacy 18:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
"They murdered more than Poles though"
Yes, but is it a reason to remove the link to Anti-Polonism?--Witkacy 18:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Why do you removed again?--Witkacy 23:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And again.... why do you remove the link to Anti-Polonism?--Witkacy 01:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of breaking the 3RR

See my talk.--Witkacy 00:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In case you're interested

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SNIyer1 · Katefan0(scribble) 15:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] how to take an RFC

SlimVirgin, regarding this diff: There is nothing on the RFC page that supports your imperative to editors to "not take it lightly". The page describes an RFC as something to be used to get comments from outside readers, to break a deadlock, resolve a dispute, etc. There is nothing punitive or negative in this description that would beseech the editor to take an RFC any more serious than that. That some editors view an RFC as punitive is fact supported by a number of comments on the RFC talk page to change the dispute resolution system so that RFC's aren't viewed as part of teh punitive system, but it is not the design or intent of an RFC to do anything other than get outside comments, break deadlocks, and resolve disputes. There is nothing on the RFC page describing an RFC that supports your imperative that an RFC is "not to be taken lightly". And I request that you please stop adding an unsupported claim. FuelWagon 19:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It should indeed not be done lightly. Where does it say this on the RFC page? Where is this stated as official policy?
Please raise the issue on the discussion page if you want to see what others think, I have.
don't keep reverting my edits. Don't do original research. cite wikipedia policy, don't just change policy. FuelWagon 20:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. It's very much appreciated! --Alan Au 06:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 103

I do plan to work on some of the subarticles I proposed at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103. We will collaborate on what should be moved to those subarticles, as well as find out what to keep at Pan Am Flight 103. I'm very serious about having the article size reduced. SNIyer12(talk) 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I just started the article about the bombing trial. As I said at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103, that article is all yours to add/edit. We'll be in touch on what should be moved. I'll be checking Pan Am Flight 103, as well as the article on the bombing trial periodically from time to time. SNIyer12(talk) 14:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I just put a message on OscarD's talk page. I also put the same thing at the talk page for Pan Am Flight 103. I agree with OscarD about subdividing the article as well as what the user said about the articles I proposed. I think we can go ahead and subdivide the article. SNIyer12(talk)15:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankfurt was in West Germany, not Germany in 1988. East Germany and West Germany didn't come together until 1990. Please check the German towns you added to find out which Germany it was in in 1988. This article should reflect where it was at that time, not since 1990. I had to change Frankfurt, Germany to Frankfurt, West Germany as the point of origin for PA 103A to reflect 1988. SNIyer12(talk)20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MacCarthyism redux

Have you seen this bunch of articles? Category:Soviet spies It is largely but not entirely the work of Nobs01 (talk · contribs). I haven't looked at them all, but based on his contributions to Harry Magdoff and a few others, it looks like there is a lot of very questionable scholarship going on. 172 rewrote the Magdoff article last week, but his good work was subsequently undone by TJive (talk · contribs), who restored it to its former of state as basically a MacCarthyite smear. The problem, I think, is the reliance of Nobs and TJive on dodgy primary sources, such as Venona transcriptions, which, as 172 put it, have not been sanctified by secondary sources. Thoughts? Viajero | Talk 14:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Munich Massacre

The Munich Massacre article has now apparently become the "Simon Reeve's take on the Munich Massacre" article. Are you game for some cleanup? Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Good job!! Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vacation

Still on vacation, SlimVirgin. Just thought I'd say "hi" after a while (I don't have much access to wiki nowadays), can you please protect as discussed. Thank you as always.--Anonymous editor 19:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin rights abuse?

Hey SlimVirgin. Why do you deleted and protected the redirects: Anti-Polonism in America and Jewish Anti-Polonism?--Witkacy 21:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats your POV - Please revert and unprotect those redirects. Thx.--Witkacy 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Its again your POV... - please add your comments to the talk pages (on Anti-Polonism in America and Jewish Anti-Polonism), (and revert/unprotect those redirects).--Witkacy 22:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to trouble anybody over this mess, but I assume they went through proper Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome template

I noticed your comments the other day. I've knocked up this, which is my own personal preference of what should be in the welcome template. Might be inspiration for you! Dan100 (Talk) 00:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber Back

Yuber is back and evading his ban once more: IP Address 63.70.62.84. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.175.246 (talk • contribs) This is an open proxy.

[edit] Thanks!

I noticed that you reverted some vandalism that a member of the "Discrediting Wikipedia Taskforce" (read: People who have way too much time on their hands) left on my page. Thanks!*Kat* 04:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kenlivingstone4.jpg

You might have a comment to make on Image talk:Kenlivingstone4.jpg. David | Talk 13:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber's editing of Jizya

I agree that Yuber had a great deal of difficulty editing Jizya and should be banned from editing that article. I see it as a content problem. Jizya is mainly of historical interest, but nevertheless reflects badly on Islam. At the time it was a compassionate alternative to extermination of infidels, but looks pretty bad seen in a modern light. I continue to believe Yuber's ban should be limited to the controversial articles he has difficulty with. Fred Bauder 15:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 13,000

13,000!!!
13,000!!!

Congrats on 13,000 edits! I hereby award you an image of the Andes, which has an average height of 13,000 ft. :) Func( t, c ) 15:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Let me know the next time you are planning to hop on a plane...I'll be there! ☺ Func( t, c ) 16:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber returned again?

Sorry to bother you but I think you should know that another two sockpuppets have popped up that appear to be the user called Yuber. They are User:63.70.62.84 and User:Siegerz. I have reported them to the Admins noticeboard and Vandalism in Progress page but there has been no response yet. Existentializer 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The instant accusations of everyone opposed to him being "enviroknot" seem very similar to when he vandalized my user page earlier. [1] and [2] and you can compare their contribution lists too. Existentializer 17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] -Ril-

You might remember the problems ~~~~ for me previously (attempted cert of an RfC, refusal to remove it, and continued reversion of the RfC page). What started it all was his actions on The Bible and history. Since then, he continues to revert, constantly saying POV, but refuses to state anything more or even attempt a single edit. He has never said what is POV. Well, the talk page states more. He has apparently been 3RRed a good bit on other pages. And, for a while after his 3RR, he stalked pages that I was on, creating trouble on consensus issues. I prefer not to go through the hassle of an RfC, but if that is the only thing that stops him, I will. I am not in any rush, but if you have the time, could you take a look at mediating the problem? (hey, I'll change an edit, but I have no idea what he even objects to, other than me!). Thanks! --Noitall 18:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Now if I was a problem user, don't you think someone would have put me up for RFC before I got to 7000 edits? You have under 2000 so far, and that is after at least one RFC. ~~~~ 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Nevermind. I just now looked on the vote for undeletion page and saw that you took some hits for me from -Ril- and Agriculture. Wiki is not a very nice place when editors like that make those kind of charges without any repurcusions. I mean, you just fail to agree with someone on some page and personal attack charges are flying, but -Ril- and Agriculture can cause untold problems against anyone who comes in their way, and they get to then attack an Admin who tried to do the right thing. Thanks anyhow. --Noitall 23:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User: Cognition

I've just come across this wonderful individual. Looking at the user's user page to say the least we run the risk of getting sued. For example, Elizabeth II gets accused of being a dope-pusher and Donald Rumsfeld gets called a Hitler-like tyrant. Also, merely grouping people like that in the same category with Hitler and Mussolini could in and of itself be viewed a potential libel. Upon looking at the block log I see you blocked this user for 1 day earlier in the month. Has there been any consensus reached about banning this individual permanently? Given the content of their user page I think a strong case could be made on that alone. With the violation of the 3RR further strength is added.

I've posted a message on the user's talk page requiring them to remove the libellous captions within 24 hours. Given that they haven't been active on the Wikipedia for over 10 days I don't think that will get read. Your thoughts on this matter would be appreciated. David Newton 22:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty flower

Thanks! Editors like you help me keep the faith. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mass removal of the section

I am afraid your mass removal of the criticism section will only cause more reverting. The whole point of a criticism section is to show criticism. Yes, some criticism may be biased, but it is still criticism.Heraclius 00:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Copperchair

He continues to revert my edits (often stating no reason for doing so; I think he's spiting me), delete messages from his talk page, leave abusive messages on others' talk pages, and in general act like an immature, antisocial jerk. (I can provide diffs.) Since I'm the only one affected by this so far I'm puzzled as to where to go from here, but as you are at least peripherally aware of the situation I thought you might be able to help. — Phil Welch 02:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lunchmeatistasty vandalism

If s/he hasn't been blocked already will you do it. Lunchmeatistasty has been vandalising sites along with my talk page. Wikipedia Username 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hi

What's the deal over there on al qadea? Gott read a frikkin short story to figure out the contorversy. Ya think an al qaeda contorversy is getting resolved any time soon really? How can I help w/o actually listening to all the mud-slinging and taking sides in what I'm sure is a stupid dispute? It's getting to the point where I wann be an admin so I can be able to touch important content.

Kzzl 05:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (I think)

How tasteful, er... kind. I wish I'd had the foresight to make sure that the 20,000th was pleasanter and more constructive than a revert of inveterate vandalims. I must remember that for my 30,000th. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sjakkalle's dictatorial move

Hiya Slim: Can you please research and re-open the ridiculous move by User:Sjakkalle. I have sent him this message: Hi Sjak: Kindly explain your math please at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: 34 "keeps" is better than 66 "deletes"...the "deletes" had almost DOUBLE the votes and you decide against them? This makes no sense! I will call on others to object to your dictatorial move! IZAK 10:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 66 to 34 is less than 66%, the consensus boundary, and so it has to be regarded as "no consensus" - a default keep. It requires AT LEAST double, so almost double is not enough. ~~~~ 20:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reopening the VfD

  • Hi, User:Danny has called for the VfD to be re-opened. See Talk:Religious persecution by Jews#Reopen debate, please voice your opinion. Thanks, and be well. IZAK 12:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Hello, Slim, this is me spamming you to make you aware of this, in case you wish to comment. Best, Bishonen | talk 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The crusade continues

In case you're wondering what Wikipedia:Readers_First is really about, have a look at this: [3] Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agiantman

Please see this report. 172 | Talk 22:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 103

How come you haven't started sub-dividing the article? You, OscarD, and I will be working together to subdivide the article. You agreed on the subarticles I proposed, as did OscarD and I agreed with OscarD said about the articles I proposed. -- SNIyer12(talk) 21:31, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I've checked Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial and I've seen that a lot of anonymous users have been making additions to the page. You might want to put a message on Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. -- SNIyer12(talk) 18:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli terrorism

Please don't move other people's comments. If you want to move your own, that's fine, but you have no right to move anyone else's. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I do have that right. Wikipedia Policy is clear that maintenance of talk pages-- of which VfD Discussions are considered a part-- is a good thing. For edification:

From Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion:

"Discussion follows the normal Wikipedia talk page etiquette."

From Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page:

"When talk pages — like article pages — become larger than 32kb, they cannot be edited by some users because of browser page size limits. Moreover, such large texts become bulky and difficult to navigate, and place a burden on users with slow (dialup) connections...
Please note that refactoring a talk page is an alternative to archiving it."

From Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Maintenance:

"Dozens of articles are listed for deletion every day, making Wikipedia:Votes for deletion one of the busiest places on Wikipedia. The way VfD is currently set up, including all of the discussion on a single page, makes it one of the largest pages on Wikipedia, too. This results in a long page that can be difficult to navigate. More importantly, it results in long page load times, especially for Wikipedians with slower connections. It is a waste of both time, bandwidth and server resources.
Fortunately, the page bloat can be reduced. Certain types of discussion can be safely "un-included" from the main page, but still referenced by a link. This reduces the page size while keeping the discussions close at hand."

From Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages:

"Refactoring is a process of rewriting with the aim of improving a text's readability or structure whilst retaining the original meaning. The aim of refactoring Wikipedia talk pages is to make past discussions more accessible, readable and useful... On Wikipedia, however, the term "refactoring" is often used to mean any changes to a talk page that improve the readability of it.
Refactoring of talk pages on Wikipedia is important....You should be aiming to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, have less redundancy and less information overload. Think what the talk page is about and remove anything superfluous that would not help future editors to the page. Do not discard useful information; if something is important but irrelevant, move it somewhere more appropriate.
When to refactor
Consider these guidelines when refactoring a discussion:
  • Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; however, proper application should enhance the clarity of the discussion and therefore lessen the risk of confusion.
  • Refactoring must be done responsibly and objectively. The original meaning of the refactored statements pertinent to the subject of discussion must not be obscured.
Refactoring may occur more than once. Constant refactoring is a good thing and you can refactor as you go.
Remove off-topic comments
When refactoring a talk page, remember that Wikipedia is not a chat room. People may have chatted while developing an article, but is this going to help future editors working on the page? Probably not, so condense it to what is relevant to the article, bringing out the points of argument, while leaving behind the personal attacks and off topic comments about who should be banned, and who violated their sysop privileges while editing the page.
If a comment has some value, reorganise it or move it. If not, delete it. The full archive is there for those with the time and inclination to read it. Your summary should be of maximum benefit to the most readers.
Reorder and rename
Refactoring a page does not have to be as complex as rewriting it. A page can be more readable simply by grouping related topics together. Most talk pages will be chronological. You don't need to keep this structure. Perhaps a page would be clearer if split into a list of for and against arguments."

I would hope that you realize that my refactor of the off-topic discussion on that VfD page was to improve the readability and organization -- without touching the votes or the discussion of them at all. Your continued reverts are unnecessary, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. I would expect that you will return the off-topic discussion to the subsection, as is appropriate. --LeFlyman 09:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire

I am requesting you revert yourself. You are not supposed to pick a version when you are protecting articles. user:66.69.128.146

It would be nice if you listed the article on WP:PP. I don't see the picking a version thing as such a big issue in this case, since otherwise there'd have been duplicate content. Pakaran 23:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enviroknot sockpuppet User:Ni-ju-Ichi

I know you've had some experience with Enviroknot and his sockpuppets. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ni-ju-Ichi_blocked_as_sockpuppet_of_Enviroknot, especially this evidence [4]. I strongly believe there's enough evidence to reinstate the block on Ni-ju-Ichi. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 22:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

Same for you, of course, and for the Slrubenstein contribution you reintroduced. --Francis Schonken 22:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Whatever "meritocracy" argument you're trying to push, I repeat: the same goes for you.
Some of your arguments I can understand (for instance the topic being delicate) others I can't (don't see where my contribution was "contradicting"?). I completely agree to continue this talk on the policy's talk page, so, see you there! --[[User:Francis

Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 23:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impostor

Hello I see you've been hit by my impersonator. Sounds just like me, No? Anyways (as you know) just saying that wasn't me, that was... probably Redwolf24isgay, Mickey654, and/or MR LOL. With respect, Redwolf24 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, nice talk page :) Redwolf24 02:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Page - Inappropriate?

Sorry to bother you, but I have a bit of a problem. I found someone with a somewhat inappropriate user page. It's not gruesome or anything, but eh... I don't know. I came to you because I know you are an admin, and I know you are currently on. The user is Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme. It's probably meant to be a joke, but some people may be offended. I hope I did the correct thing by coming to you. Ryan 05:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Grutness left a note about it on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents, so we might be all set. Again, sorry to bother you. Ryan 05:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] why

why revert and re add what dreamGuy lies about? havnt enough people been hanging off my every word looking for a mistake lately? Gabrielsimon 05:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] just

i cant stand being lied about... Gabrielsimon 05:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otherkin

Hi; just for your information, the old medical section is archived at User:Vashti/Otherkin/Medical perspectives, if you want to refer to it quickly. Vashti 11:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Tony Sidaway

As one of a number of administrators whom I respect I would appreciate your honest and forthright comments on this. I'm considering taking the issue of my practice as VfD closer to arbitration committee with a view to having myself de-opped (don't worry, I'd be quite happy as an editor so I'm not about to leave Wikipedia). Before I do that, though, I want to have some input on whether my approach to closing a VfD is really so unorthodox as to be beyond the reach of human understanding. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TelAvivKid

Thanks for clarifying the situation; I indeed wasn't around for this guy's former sockpuppet rain of terror. I didn't mean to gouge your credibility either, I just honestly had no idea what this guy's history was. --LouieS 01:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop deleting the chapter summaries of sword of the prophet

I do not know what is your agenda is, but have the integrity to read the book first before taking further actions on that page. If you have a valid point to make then I am open to it. Thank you.--CltFn 04:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Israeli Terrorism VfD

Hi Leflyman, it's best not to move people's comments during a VfD, especially one where the sock puppetry of the nominator may be directly relevant to the way people vote. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

If you will look back-- the comments were smack in the middle of the voting, unrelated to the VfD itself and disruptive of the process. While I understand Jayjg wished to point out his belief that the nominator is a sockpuppet/troll, the discussion was getting out-of-hand. It was announced by Jayjg prominently in two places: both at the top and inexplicably (initially), at the bottom of the page. Thus, I moved the intrusive section below all the votes (as it had been), as a second level heading, where it would not further interfere with the vote tabulation, and could be more easily edited. No comments were moved from actual votes themselves.

I would suggest your revert, returning the long section to the middle of the votes was not helpful.

Meta-discussions about the qualifications (or lack) of the nominator are not germane to the vote, itself, and would be more appropriately taken up elsewhere. Likewise, I believe that the "cheerleading/insulting" (as one person put it) by TelAvivKid were out-of-order -- but other than to suggest he be muzzled, there's nothing to be done.

best wishes, LeFlyman 06:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

previous response archived to User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive17#Israeli_terrorism

It isn't a talk page and anyway "[r]efactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion." Why can't you just leave it alone? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's absolutely right. The VfD discussion shouldn't be turned into a talk page or a chat room, yet that is what Jayjg inadvertently created by introducing an off-topic discussion about sock-puppetry into the middle of the vote. Please note that the sentence you quote is incomplete: "if improperly applied..." makes clear that there is a proper way to refactor a discussion-- as stated in the subordinate clause that follows the quoted section: "...however, proper application should enhance the clarity of the discussion and therefore lessen the risk of confusion."
The clearest policy statements about what refactoring not to do in regards to VfD discussions are: "Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process. " (Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_Deletion); and, "Please do not refactor a discussion thread in a way that makes reviewing the edit history more complicated." (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Maintenance#Refactoring_the_discussion_thread) -- neither of which are applicable to my moving the off-topic, non-vote discussion section to the bottom. In fact, that Maintenance Policy page lists some examples of appropriate ways to refactor VfD discussions to improve them-- including moving comments to make them more logical-- and naturally, that's not an all-inclusive list.
As to why I can't leave it alone -- simple: because I am correct. Why can't you admit that?
regards, LeFlyman 10:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OR on Otherkin

Thanks for helping out with no original research on Otherkin. It looks to me like you've been around a while and understand this well. Lately I've concluded that sifting through various conflicting sources of equal reliability and picking one view to present as "fact" is original research. Would you say this is true? I think this is basically what's going on in Otherkin, not just in the medical section, but in the whole article. There are very few sources on this other than what otherkin themselves write on their web sites. I'm not sure that any of these sources should be used. I'm trying to interpret the guidelines as well as I can, but I can't claim to be well versed in the rules, I haven't been here that long. To me it looks like many of the sources are blatantly ridiculous, and some of them contradict each other. It doesn't look like there's much way to get any good facts on this topic. If you had any opinions to give this issue, I'd love to hear them. Friday 06:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

There has been an edit war on the article Vampires. You have listed rules of "Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR." But I have seen DreamGuy violate the 3RR six or seven times. But it seems like you ignores his reverts and punish others. You also have listed, "Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk." DreamGuy made drastic changes, against the wishes of at least four people not including myself and again you seem fine with this. I am a new user and when the "edit wars" started another user suggested everyone take a week off. I followed his advice only to see that DreamGuy bullied his way about. The article is about vampire and he doesn't want anything in the last 200 years referenced, notable Bram Stoker's Dracula. I am new user but I am disappointed in the way the whole thing has been handled since I tried take a step back. Users who agreed Evmore (me), Pablo D. Flores, Existentializer (banned but he was in the right, DreamGuy made the changes and wouldn't listen to anyone), Ni-ju-Ichi (I think a sockpuppet of Existentializer though), and Gabrielsimon (banned too but I don't know why). Like I said I have been gone for a week. Just dop me a favor and look at DreamGuys homepage, other articles he has touched and tell me that he isn't violating these rules. I appreciate it. The only thing I can suggest is an article Vampires (folklore) for those who want to know the history on how the mythos evolved and the regular Vampire section to cover what an everyday user might want to find out about, vampires they have heard about, seen and read about, what are they, just like any other topic like Frankenstein or Superman.--Evmore 11:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The accusation that I have violated 3RR on that article at all, let alone "six or seven times" is absolutely false. The articles were already listed at the 3RR notice page recently and admins saw that nobody had violated the policy on those articles (though with some of the names this was likely just due to the use of sockpuppets, now banned after they were identified as definitely being the same person). Evmore's claims that I am violating consensus are also absolutely false, as he straight out insulted me and declared his intention to undo every edit I made to the article to preserve edits he made, at which point another editor suggested he take a week off. The claim that I don't want "anything in the last 200 years referenced" is also completely false, as that was not my stance (I simply pointed out that excessive dependence almost completely only on fictional references for a huge section of the main article, when there is an article specifically about Vampire fiction was completely unacceptable, a stance others have agreed upon, reaching consensus). This editor's history shows clear evidence of simple overreaching blind reverts of articles back to his version, even if it wipes out new additions. His false accusations here are just the latest in his inability to work with others and his emotional belief that others are violating policy when they are just enforcing policy. DreamGuy 20:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I would highly suggest just as a general rule that you take a little effort to research these claims before posting a warning on editor's talk pages. Trying to tell me what the punishment would be for violating a policy I am in fact following and already know well about comes off as rather condescending. This is especially distressing as you had already seen and posted in the appropriate section of the 3rr noticeboard where this was discussed and should know that these claims are false if you had read the section you were an active participant in. A warning in these circumstances seems to me to go beyond simply not having researched it yet and making an inappropriate comment out of ignorance straight to totally inappropriate and reckless. Please try to think about these kinds of actions ahead of time. DreamGuy 20:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Per your recent comments on my talk page: I'm sorry, but you were far more rude to me by your comments and complete disregard for charges you had to know were false because you were already involved in the discussion about the pages on the 3RR noticeboard. I was only blocked for 3RR once a long time ago under circumstances that were quite unclear (and for which the admin involved admitted making some mistakes), so the claim that I would violate it because of that incident is also quite condescending. I am finding your insistence on giving a completely unneccessary warning based upon clearly false and bad faith charges to be completely out of line. DreamGuy 22:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is a nicer heading

Your recent comments on User talk:Evmore's page are really crossing the line here. Coming to you with a concern is one thing, coming to you with outright false accusations is quite another. I reverted the article a lot because this editor was in an edit war, and then some sockpuppets and someone undergoing RfC for bad behavior jumped in to cause fights. I am perfectly fine coming to a compromise, if that were necessary (see the concensus formed on the actual articles) and if this editor showed any attempt to do so whatesoever. He reverted back every single last change including copyright violation images that don't even fit in the article and admitted straight out that he would undo everything I did. He caused the problem, the rest of us solved it, and your defense of him here because I pointed out your errors elsewhere (this page and your coments about the Otherkin article allegedly having original research) is really out of line. Please take the time to actually look into what happened and do not chastise me for giving helpful advice to someone breaking the rules when you seem to be OK with the idea that he made severe accusations that were absolutely false. DreamGuy 01:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of backing off... How in your mind do you think it makes sense to ask me not to post on your talk page when this was prompted by you rudely posting on my talk page? Don;t think you have to follow the same rules you make for other people or what's the problem there? And as far as your claim that mentioning a medical diagnosis specifically created for the exact condition being discussed is prohibitted on an article because of no original research, perhaps you need to read the policy. Your claim makes no sense. Changing the name of something and claiming it's some new thing that needs new research in order to comment on it is completely nuts. The description is the description, the research already exists, and it's the experts in the field who already said it. It's not only not original research it's long-running standard noncontroversial research. The only thing that becomes controversial about it at all is that some people want to ignore the research. DreamGuy 08:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
all i can think of is perhaps that ws going too far.... telling a mod what to do doesnt usually go over well on any part of the net...

Gabrielsimon 03:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

would you give it a rest, DreamGuy, its clear that it is origional research, even Nikpter said so ( checek my archive 4 to find where this was) as ive siad before, telling moderators and admins how to act can not go well for you. holding onto such negativity cant bode well either, now im not trying to get in the middle ofthis, but if this keeps going slimvirgin here might stop taking your efforts to improove the quality of this project very seriously... Gabrielsimon 08:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Could both of you please refrain from having this argument on my sockpuppet's talk page? El_C 09:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Your sockpuppet would appreciate that too, insofar as she's permitted to appreciate things independently. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Wishful thinking is a harsh mistress! El_C 09:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I spend many a waking hour thinking wishfully of the harshness of that mistress. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
You and me both. Now where did I put that whip? El_C 09:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

how about "darkness or light, the choice doesnt matter, what matters is the choosing itself" as a pretty little thoughtcrime? Gabrielsimon 09:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Offer

You proposed aiding peace. What I need, is for people to not gang upon individuals who happen to edit whatever may be on the persecutors' watchlist. I must be specific here, for this is too broad. The group in question is Jewish(largely Zionist) and/or sympathetic to their causes, however wide and far ranging that may be. I don't like how they lynched User:Witkacy, just because he is Polish and they think they can bully him. I know that this conflict was rooted in the Jewish ghettoes of Poland in historic times, but it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. I initially got involved in it, because User:Jayjg and his friends(largely Jewish) would join eachother in trying to control various articles to their POV. This is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and blatantly partial, without any such neutrality called for. Their lynching is what Wikipedia considers personal attacks and by automatically enjoining into a revert war simply because of the editor's differing orientation on the same articles, is not assuming good faith. User:TShilo12 vandalised a namespace page by Polish User:Halibutt(now possessed by Witkacy) and I returned the favour in commenting on his "dirt-gathering" namespace page against me. He accuses me of patent nonsense and original research, but these are the very things I was attempting to filter out of the Aryan invasion theory because of the Nazi craze with it. I wouldn't have any problem with these people if they stopped acting like they were desperate to censor or distort everything that comes under their noses, with clear POV. I was an innocent bystander until I just so happened to edit on pages that make it to Jayjg's watchlist, when he bullied me to keep in line with his POV or break the 3RR. Later on when it came to discussion of the merits for an article about Jewish persecution of others, I made a point in referencing Jayjg's name and he as an administrator blocked me personally, despite this being against better judgement and standards of the Wikipedia. Every article edited by me in which I was lynchmobbed, has been on the periphery of my interests and not in the least central to my ideological orientation. I usually focus on other things that my persecutors barely consider purveying, as I aim to ignore their interests. TheUnforgiven 09:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Editor bias

SlimVirgin. I noticed that in attempting to solicit another editor's input on the Horowitz section I composed for the Chip Berlet article, you stated "RD is, of course, complaining that I'm biased, while he, naturally, is the epitome of disinterested scholarship." Your characterization of me is false, as nowhere have I asserted that I am "the epitome of disinterested scholarship" or anything even remotely suggesting that. In fact I'm the first to admit that my politics lean libertarian and an inescapable result, as with ANY point of view, is that this sometimes shows through in my work. I attempt to neutralize it where possible, and rely on other countering viewpoints to check my edits where necessary, but nowhere have I purported myself to be free from bias as you say. You, by contrast, have essentially asserted as much for yourself in your statement here after I questioned your neutrality in dealing with material pertaining to editors with whom you have a personal allegiance or friendship (and Cberlet is one of those) based upon my previous experience with you in several other cases.

Neutrality is not a one way street, Slim, and you are not exempt from its confines nor always in compliance with its provisions. That in itself is not a terrible fault - nobody is perfectly neutral all of the time no matter how hard he or she tries to be. But being unable to recognize that fact is a fault, and I hope that you will take this criticism constructively and seek to raise your self-awareness on issues of personal bias in your relationships with other editors. That doesn't mean you have to give a cold shoulder to your friends on wikipedia either, nor does it mean you have to avoid assisting them in their edits. Just don't let your personal allegiances with other editors get in the way of how you handle article content and how you evaluate their edits as well as the edits of others. Content should be judged on whether it is accurate and fitting to the article - not on who added it or who the article is about. Disputes should be judged on which WP policies and guidelines apply - not on whether one of the parties to it is a "friend" who you personally believe to be a high quality editor based upon unrelated editing experiences. The alternative is very counterproductive as it fosters editor cliques, exacerbates disputes through persomality-driven allegiences even in clear cases of wrong, and tends to alienate the editor or editors who do not fall within the circle of friends you side with. Again this does not mean you should avoid making friends and quite to the contrary - it's great if you know other editors who you can collaborate with well. Just don't let allegiances and personalities overshadow the real object of participating here, and that is developing article content. Thanks for understanding. Rangerdude 09:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please review behavior/editing

I see you temporarily blocked FestivalOfSouls and then unblocked him with instructions for behavior. Please review discussion on his talk page and continued edits. He continues with indescriminate and inaccurate labling of everything Jewish- or Christian-related as being Mythology, with no attempt at consensus when called on it for a specific article. Jim Ellis 19:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please review my reasoning. jim Ellis has apparently ignored all my comments, insisting on repeatedly removing valid contributions, and is not even attempting to be neutral. If you look over the course of today, you will see that I have conceeded minor edits, such as trinity in an attempt to compromise. He is ignoring the definition of myth entirely in order to push his POV.FestivalOfSouls 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful

I know this isn't an important message, but I think you have a fabulous user page. I tried to make mine nice, so I guess your competition (and you've won at that). Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your supportive words. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

but i felt that the rather delusional seeming comments i just deleted had to go. Gabrielsimon 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

also, since hes stubbron like he is, i wouldnt be suprised if he tried to launch an RFC about abusing admin powers once hes able... just a thought. Gabrielsimon 01:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I just happened by, and looked at the conversation; I will have to agree with the arch angel Gabrielsimon that the attacking language of User:DreamGuy, while maybe well intended, was definitely unwarranted; You were polite in your warning post, and even stated that you were not making any accusations per se.
On another note, since I see that Jim Ellis posted here, I would like to point out that he was polite and congenial and exhibited good "wiki" manners, but we still disagreed over a few points at Talk:Christianity#Thanking_Jim_Ellis_for_explanation.2C_etc._.3B_Seeking_3rd_opinion.
Therefore, if you have nothing better to do, could you come on over and help out my main man, Jesus, here at Christianity: I feel that some of His teachings and main tenets / beliefs may not be represented fully, and would appreciate your participation as "one more voice / vote," not necessarily in an admin role or anything, but I recall your great assistance in helping out the daughter of my friend, Bob Schindler's, at her "wiki" page, Terri Schiavo.
Thank you,--GordonWattsDotCom 01:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] if

if DreamGuys blocked, how come hes t ill able to edit? Gabrielsimon 01:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 39

You will always be #39 in my heart. ;-) Thank you, Slim! Func( t, c ) 04:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] admin vote

Thanks for the words of support on the RfA. Kaldari 04:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vampire fiction

hesat it again! please protect the page. Gabrielsimon 06:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] just to tell you

no disres[ect, but oi noticed that even you think i am a problem user. please know that i really am trying very hard not to be one. Gabrielsimon 09:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you very much

Both for the barnstar, and for your fab support on my RfA :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

PS I'm not sure I ever said - yes, I ripped off your talk page colour scheme for my user pages! It's just such a nice combination I couldn't resist :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] By the way

I just wanted to say, since Jayjg suggested my initial attempt to unprotect Therianthropy might be construed to imply this, that I didn't intend it as a vote of non-confidence in your admin decisions. I did intend it as a disagreement with your admin decision, but solely in the sense of "reasonable people can disagree on this matter". Sorry about any wikistress that might have ensued. Bryan 00:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

Just so you know, a sock of 69.217.120.115, which you blocked a few hours ago, posted a complaint about you on WP:AN/I. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist militancy/terrorism

I was wondering what your thoughts are on this. Someone moved the Zionist terrorism article to "Zionist militancy" a few days ago but gave no reason. Right now, Guy Montag (as usual) has moved it back giving no reason either.Heraclius 05:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The same editor is now doing a total rewrite of Nablus and adding information that belongs in the Shechem article.Heraclius 05:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Anti-Polonism

You blanked and protected Jewish Anti-Polonism on July 25; is it supposed to be deleted? --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I'll delete it for now. --Merovingian (t) (c) 18:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hi

you seem to like philosophy so how about " when ideas fail, words come in handy"

)

Ketrovin 15:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:User page

Hey DB, thank you so much for the kind words about my page, which is a real compliment coming from you, as yours looks so good. I'm not very familiar with how to do these things, so I had to fiddle around a lot to make it work, and there's probably more fiddling to come. Thank you. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Image:WikiThanks.png Thanks for the nice comments. I still think yours looks better, happy editing, D. J. Bracey (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent reverts

[5] and [6] strike me as particularly obvious cases of when not to revert. In the first case, I had been editing and discussing with El C for some time until you came in and reverted and Mel Etitis blocked the page, thus preventing further compromise. In the second, I responded to the cleanup header and talk page complaint, spending a good 15 minutes scouring the article for POV or unsourced claims, as well as spelling and punctuation errors, only to find myself reverted without comment, within 10 minutes of having done so. I think these are perfect examples of when not to revert. You did leave a comment on talk:Racialism, but it was comically bizarre, suggesting I do just as I had done, which gives me the impression you hadn't been following that discussion very closely. Therefore I urge you to be slow to revert, quick to discuss, and to avoid any appearence of partisanship. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redwolf24

Why did you block my impersonator? he was just having fun! Don't block people just for usernames. Redwolf24

Damn these impostors!!!!!! Redwolf24 03:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] scareyness

onething, i hope i didnt offend in our emailing conversation...

secondthing,. people at My RFC drovea newbie away topday. i dontthink thats right. dreamGuy was expecially rude to him, everyone thought he was me, which isnt the case, i am me, as it were. check out the talk page on Religion and schizotypy to see where the cincher seemed to come from. Gabrielsimon 23:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Igor

I sterbinski has been deleting info from Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia and replacing it with comments like "this is ten years old" and "this is bullshit". I already contacted Thryduulf requesting a 24 hour ban but he's too tired too investigate. Any mediation (or temp. block....) would be much appreciated. Thanks. freestylefrappe 01:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unocal Corporation

NO OIL 4 U and his sockpuppet Katie Daryl is Georgeous have been adding in anti-Chinese pov to Unocal corporation. NO OIL 4 U has 14 edits, KD is G has 4 edits. freestylefrappe 01:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted Images

I posted two images owned by Wang Wei, Image:Werewolves.jpg and Image:Vampires.jpg who gave me permission to post them on Wikipedia. I used the tag {{PermissionAndFairUse|copyright}}. DreamGuy tagged it as a copyright violation. It is clearly not a copyright violation since the owner gave me permission to use it on Wikipedia but it may be a violation of Wikipedia policy. The copyright violation tag says "To the poster: If there was permission to use this image...please indicate so here." So I indicate how the user authorized the pictures to be used in Wikipedia. Also I added it probably qualified by Wikipedia and by all other licensees under the fair use doctrine since 1) it is being used for nonprofit educational purposes and 2) because there is zero impact on the market or value of the copyrighted work. DreamGuy keeps on removing what I added (which I added only trying to follow the instructions that I learn as I go) and replacing it with personal attacks against me like saying "editor has knowingly falsely labeled other images" which I have not and "Editor did upload claiming copyright with permission, could not show permission" which I can show or the owner can be contacted at blizzard@wangwei-art.com for further proof. Could you please either delete the image if it is a Wikipedia violation or protect it so that DreamGuy will not put personal attacks against me on it. Thank you. --Evmore 14:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the same editor who falsely claimed I violated the 3RR rule "six or seven times" and I've already explained to him the problem with these images. He didn;t even read the notices on the very first upload page "Please do not upload files under a "non-commercial use only" or "copyrighted, used by permission" licence. Such files will be deleted." and has, in fact, lied on other image descriptions, also lying in his claim that an admin of approved of the images (tracing his contributions show that the admin he asked actually said the opposite). Simply put, he cannot keep removing the copyright violation tag on images he himself uploaded. Not to mention it's rather pointless as no article uses them and no article will. This editor is also the one who started the Vampire edit war by specifically declaring that he was going to revert any and all changes I made, switching back to his version and changing all spelling corrections and so forth made by other users in the process... and attracting the attention of the sockpuppets and Gabrielsimon, looking for ways to disrupt articles. DreamGuy 14:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy you are the one who started the edit wars and now you are starting an edit war on my talk page. I didn't falsely claim anything. You did have multiple reverts on the vampire page and the image pages. You broke the 3RR rule on my talk page alone. Besides, the 3RR you and SlimVirgin already talked about. You also argued with him on my talk page. If I want to remove you two's long discussion that is my business it is my talk page. I didn't lie on any pages you try and make it seem like I am lying when I have been completely honest the entire time and I am just trying to compromise. I am not removing the copyright violation tag I am doing what the instructions say, "To the poster: If there was permission to use this image...please indicate so here." That is what I am trying to do even though my orignial tag {{PermissionAndFairUse|copyright}} is accurate. And now I feel like you are removing that so people don't see it. And the reason no articles use them is because YOU keep on removing them because as YOU said YOU think they are silly. I didn't do blind reverts removing spelling corrections and so forth made by other users. And I can't help what people jump in the discussion and also it seems to me that you call everyone a sockpuppet without any proof. As for as admin comments, this is why I originally put that..."Somethings you can never show at wiki... such as lyrics. I think a picture of a vampire kit is allowable however... I'll check on it. Redwolf24 22:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)" That is the last I will take up on SlimVirgin's talk page. --Evmore 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please unprotect Nablus

The version is currently undergoing a major rewrite.Heraclius 04:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I hate to be saying this (as the guy seems to be a Neo-Nazi), but the anon is reverting to my version. My version includes merged sections of Guy Montag's but without the POV. I move many of his additions to Shechem as well.Heraclius 04:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, that appears to be a personal attack. How'd you come up with that?!!69.209.232.9 05:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ketrovin's block

Nice work. Watch out for User:Khulhy, his new sockpuppet, if you don't already know. ~~ N (t/c) 06:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you have proof he's a sockpuppet of Gabe? Don't get me wrong, I know their behavior is near-identical and it's very likely, I was just curious if this had been backed up by someone comparing their IPs or what not. The reversion you did on Gabe's RFC is proof enough to me, but I was just curious if there was concrete evidence. --Golbez 07:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I reread your reversion, and noticed he said "me". He was logged into the wrong account. Tragically hilarious. If only all RfCs could be this entertaining. --Golbez 07:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking2

Good friggin gawd. Busy night.  :-\ Tomer TALK 11:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

69.209.225.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Tomer TALK 12:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC) he's back at 69.209.230.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Tomer TALK 12:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

redux: 69.209.197.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), .69.217.193.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Tomer TALK 05:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive sockpuppet

SlimVirgin, could you please take a gander at the notice on "Coqsportif", a new and particularly disruptive user who is in all likelihood a strawman sockpuppet? Among other things, the account has violated 3RR over at Harry Magdoff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and shows no signs of stopping. Thanks. --TJive 12:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I have not broken any such rule. And I am neither strawman nor sockpuppet. I am having every edit I do blocked by User:Viriditas and have complained about it. I would just like changes explained as I have explained my changes. Coqsportif 12:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The user has reverted four times, [7], [8], [9], [10], to an old version of the article which was mine. Please see the notice I mentioned for further information on this user. --TJive 13:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, isn't it, how this user immediately finds the way to your talk page with my comments, showing that they are either: 1) scanning my contributions, 2) have a watchlist which encompasses user talk pages they should have no reason to have contacted thus far. Again, see the noticeboard, Slim. --TJive 13:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

They are not four reversions and after I left a message on your talk page you were on my watchlist, which I think updates automatically. Assuming evil is not fair or nice. Coqsportif 13:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and I won't edit anything actually until I get an explanation about why Viriditas is reverting every edit I make. Coqsportif 13:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you managed to discern value in scanning your watchlist, specifically saw Slim's message to me, turned here, and posted a cogent response and signature in less than three minutes, which is the difference in time between Slim's posting on my page and yours here, and your only plausible connection to seeing this as you describe it? That would make you a rather skilled user I should say, certainly not one who in the same sitting posts both at the bottom and top of talk pages, with headers and without. It is indicative of one who knows the essential purpose, importance, and placing of votes for deletion pages, coincidentally one that Ruy Lopez started. --TJive 13:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the respite, if brief. If you read my post at the notice in question, and scan the contributions of the users I mentioned, you will know that the existence of these disruptive sockpuppets is very much real, and has been ongoing for weeks. Three or four of them have been banned (by Jayjg) for their activities but this newest incarnation is more creative and Jayjg has so far not indicated any interest in resolving the question. If you follow the contributions chronologically and then take a look at Ruy Lopez's page when they begin (the first sockpuppet being Bee Hive) you will see that he reverts the same general set of pages where Ruy left off. This is his most creative attempt at disruption but it certainly won't be the last.
Incidentally, Viajero noticed the pattern and inordinate knowledge of this user for his own part, but, apparently oblivious to the irony, alerted Ruy Lopez to inform him of "Coq"'s egregious editing, which this time goes squarely against Ruy's politics. --TJive 13:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for pledging to take a more extensive look at this person; so far no other administrator has indicated interest, though more than a couple users have complained. --TJive 13:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isreali Terrorism

Hope you approve the edits I made to this - you're right to keep insisting on a higher standard of citation. Please take my attempts at changing in good faith - as I take your constructive criticism. 62.253.64.15 18:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 69.209.219.184 block question

Hi. I wonder if you could explain your reasoning for the very long length of the following block:

20:16, August 7, 2005, SlimVirgin blocked 69.209.219.184 (expires 20:16, November 7, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (disruption, block evasion)

Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the reasons for your block, merely it's length. As this person clearly has the ability to change IPs easily, a long term block on a single IP is surely futile? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
It's impossible to make an IP ban (on someone with a dynamic IP) that's narrow enough to avoid collateral damage; even if you managed to "hit" only him now, a long ban like 3 months is likely to block a new user on the same IP. Frustrating as it undoubtedly is, there really isn't a technical solution to such problem users (nor, really, will there ever be). It would be another matter if he were on a slow-turnover IP (like a DSL line) or if a given address was an anonymiser or a TOR proxy. As he apparently isn't, then surely the only pragmatic thing is to grind him down, forcing him to relocate with 6 hour blocks. I really can't see what benefit you believe we'll gain from 3 month "daisy cutter" blocks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:06, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter, thank you for asking. I would, however like SlimVirgin to provide the reason for the 3 month block.69.217.193.183 03:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Berlet article

I have no problem with an admin who is completely uninvolved coming in and protecting the page. However, that's not what happened - and that tag-team revert/protect number was just pathetic.

As to the dustup over the article, I agree that Rangerdude has an axe to grind, but the attempted compromise version that was reverted (and immediately protected) was by TJive, who although conservative, is not being unreasonable there. You can't point to Rangerdude's behaviour to excuse the treatment of TJive.

And as to the content, the set-to between Chip and Horowitz (who's a major public figure) is definitely worth covering on an article on Chip. I read all four screeds completely, and found them worth covering (although I think both sides stepped over the line at several points). Noel (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You've got something of a point about Rangerdude. Let me ponder it for a few minutes, and see if I can come up with something. Noel (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
PS: I'll take your word for it about Jayjg, but it would have been much better if he'd protected the earlier version, TJive's compromise wording - doing so would have completely avoid the appearance of being partial. Noel (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Sigh, looking at this latest burst of prickliness from Rangerdude, I'm really not sure what to do. I was going to suggest to RD that, given his past history with Chip here, he step back and let others (e.g. TJive) take the lead on assuring that the article is neutral. However, at this point, I suspect RD would simply reject that. Sigh, not sure how to handle this. (Sigh, a better way to deal with contentious articles is Wikipedia's single biggest need now, I think...) Hmm, maybe if I ask TJive and Nobs to ask him to let them take the lead? Noel (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet?

Just a heads up on this user- User:Gavin the Chosen. His modus operendi is just a little too close to a user who is banned. In the interest of anonimity, sign me as a blank. Thanks!

[edit] Anti-Polonism in America

You blanked this page in July, rather then trying to fight you on this I was wondering why? If you want to delete it, do, leaving it blank seems a bit odd. I found it when lounging through Wiki's smallest pages trying to catch blanking vandals... Usrnme h8er 14:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Thanks for your support for my RFA. It is appreciated. --Briangotts (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the unblock!

Thank you for your email and for unblocking the IP. Like I said, it's a (seemingly dynamic) NTL IP address that is used by several users in my area and has been used for vandalism before: see here and here. That it affects users signing in with accounts has happened before too... it has been suggested that we contact NTL about this, but anyone with experience of their helpline would immediately start crying at the prospect, so I'll just hope that the vandalism stops instead! Thanks once again, High(Hopes) 18:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Just wanted to let you know that I have protected Daniel Pipes. I'm probably going to be logging out soon, so unprotect it as soon as you think need be. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Slim

It's not about the spelling and formatting reverts. If they do get changed in the process, I apoligize, but our main issue is with the style of charts and remix titles that gets reverted each time, and other issues. Mel blatantly changes header for no reasons, or removes them. That is our main issue. Because he does so many of them without reasoning, we have no choice but to revert them all quickly. Mel keeps vandalizing the page against the MOS policy of allowing numerals to be used. So he is just as guilty of the crime or reverting. I'd like to take each page at a time, but when Mel is causing trouble on a daily basis without looking at each revert it is harder. If you can help us please do. OmegaWikipedia 00:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

My main issues with Mel

1.) He keeps changing headers from "the song" to "song information". Most WP singles articles have "the song" listed. He may not like it, but most articles have "song information".

2.)He keeps removing headers from single articles. Now, I know some articles may seem a bit shorter than others. But we are in the process of creating single chronologies for many artists, and it goes against consistent style

3.)Remix Notation. Mel has admitted that he is clueless in music, so he's unfamiliar with remix notation. A remix is treated just as if it were part of the song, so if the remix is called "Heartbreaker (Junior's Mix) it's needs to stay like that, not Heartbreaker (Junior's mix).

4.)Chart notation. The MOS allows us to use numbers written out to talk about chart information. Mel doesn't like it, so he keep changing them. There's nothing that prevents us. He argues that there is some stuff written that doesnt exactly recommend it, but in this case, he writes them off as paragraphs making it like very confusing, but when dealing with chart stats, its better for them to be listed individually.

There are probably more issues, but for the moment, thats all I can think of. OmegaWikipedia 01:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For WBT, pretty much everything I said above.

He changes headers, spells out chart positions, and this is the worst offender.

"We Belong Together" was Carey's sixteenth number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100 (the most for a female artist), her eleventh on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, first on the Billboard Pop 100, first on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, ninth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks, sixth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Airplay, tenth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play, fifth on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (the most for any artist at that format), sixth on the Billboard Rhythmic Top 40, and her first on the Billboard Hot Ringtones.

Im sorry, but this looks like a mess, and no one can understand it. Several people have even complained on the talk page too.

  1. Most article don't in fact have "The Song"; they're divided pretty equally between that and "Song Information". There was discussion on a couple of the Talk pages, and only one person liked the "The Song"; when I changed it in line with many other articles, it received approval, but OW has taken against it (it's unclear why).
Um, no. Don't you dare try to lie about this. The Kelly Clarkson articles, the Britney articles, ,the Mariah articles, and the Beyonce articles all started out "The song". If they have are now divided, its only because you changed them. And please stop that rude condesending tone. You are know how it was at the start, so don't try to insituate that it was different. What discussion on what talk page? The only talk page discussion we ever had about any song to my memory was that drama you started over Since U Been Gone.
  1. Note that he sometimes changes it to the "The Song", sometimes" deletes it, leaving no heading, and sometimes inserts it where there isn't a heading (because the article is very short). His eagerness to revert me seems more important than the consistency of which he talks. In any case, consistency is the hobgoblin of... well, forget that, but it's surely unacceptable to make an article look messy simply in order to make it consistent with another article. (This he takes as far as using the "#" for number even in entries like "#Not released" or "#n/a".)
Um, no. My style is pretty inconsistent. I am all about headers. If theyre not replaced in the last edit, Im just undoing your other edits where you ruin the article with incorrect chart notation. I can add the header later.
  1. The descriptions like "remix", "album version", etc., were inconsistently capitalised, both within and across articles; I'm trying to bring some consistency to them. A little research has indicated that OW is wrong on this, and that they're desciptions, not titles.
A remix is the name of the song. It is NOT a description. A remix that is described is when I say "the remix of We Belong Together". The song is specifically named "We Belong Together (Remix)"
  1. With regard to chart notation, I've left abbreviations alone except in the case of descriptions such as "one week", etc. This counters OW's reversions to "1 Week". That's not only incorrectly capitalised, it looks odd to me, and spelling out the number is perfectly possible given the space available.
You've left them alone? If you did, we wouldnt be having this problem.
  1. As for the quoted paragraph, I don't see anything difficult about it. In its previous form, it was an extremely repetitive list, using the singer's Christian name, full of pointless abbreviations, and coded using HTML instead of as a normal Wikipedia list.
Several people complained on the talk page. It is difficult to read.
  1. I'll add that OW is in any case reverting my edits wholesale (whereas I've tried to retain those aspects of his edits that are acceptable), including corrections to Wiki-links, spelling, grammar, etc. He's also started looking up the articles that I've started and making silly edits to them, apparently in "retaliation". This has gone far enough — indeed, too far. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
You are just as guilty of the same thing. Did you realize you just took a whole section of WBT? So dont you dare attack me when youre guilty of the same thing. And no, I'm not editing your articles in retaliation, so dont try to imply that, although I suggest you stop stalking everything I edit (even stuff that is not related to these articles) OmegaWikipedia 17:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hey Slim, remember me? :D I have a question that my searches around wikipedia haven't been able to produce an answer for. Is there a policy page for standards of sources for articles? I vaguely remember one being linked to, but I can't find it. It would be very helpful. Thanks for the help. Oh, it might be easier if you respond here. -bro 172.150.234.103 02:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that! Did you try WP:RS (mind you, that's a guidelines — WP:V is policy) ? El_C 03:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Rock on El C, appreciate the help. -bro 172.150.234.103 03:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I am sorry and I won't do it again. I am leaving the Vampire article alone it's just not worth it as long as DreamGuy is there. Pukachu 04:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coqsportif

1) I cannot respond on the "talk" page that I have as it seems to be protected. If you did this, could you explain why?

2) You blocked me for the most spurious possible reasons. I reject your decision and your attempts to justify it after the event. You suggested I email you without providing me an address to email. I was unable to respond on your talk page and was therefore unable to complain about your actions.

3) You assert you have received complaints about my edits and that they have further prejudiced you in favour of blocking me again. What complaints and which edits do they relate to? I have not edited since 2003 and I suspect things have changed a lot but I cannot imagine any responsible admin acting in the way you have. Is assume good faith no longer relevant? I won't be back for another two years if this persists. Coqsportif 07:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Am not reluctant to email you, why haven't you emailed me? It's ridiculous, as is the bizarre conspiracy theories of the page you linked to. I again ask you what is your problem with my edits, I can hardly comply with such vague instructions. I understand the Wikipedia guidelines but if you have other ones, you should perhaps enunciate them or be silent. Coqsportif 07:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For a good chuckle, check out User talk:Nobs01#Harry Magdoff. Pretty droll... Noel (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

for your unbeleivable, superhuman patience with me.Gavin the Chosen 08:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppet template on User:Gabrielsimon

As I previewed my question about your rational for removing the template I saw my question answered. My concern was that if he reactivated that account the current notice would be disinformative, and since you're watching him I needn't worry about that. Thanks!  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If your capable, delete the account. It mattes not to me.Gavin the Chosen 08:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not going to be deleted, there is an ongoing RFC and RFAr with diffs pointing to it. El_C 13:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DreamGuy

I've already promised Ed that I will leave the Vampire page alone, it's not worth having to deal with DreamGuy.

I'm not apologizing to him though. He's a (difficult user- replaced profanity with thatGavin the Chosen 12:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)) and he keeps vandalizing my user page and lying about me. Pukachu 12:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


sorry, dont want you getting in trouble for No pesonal attacks policey, so i replaced the profanity.Gavin the Chosen 12:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The very fact it was uttered is something that I consider highly problematic. I'm not impressed with any of this. Tread lightly, Gabriel. El_C 13:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Er, you realize that replacing what he/she already put there doesn't change the fact that he/she already did that? And wasn't exactly that action which got him/her blocked yesterday and only returned after promising to be good?
Anyway, after several hours of them being gone, Pukachu and Devilbat both suddenly reappeared at the same time and both erased the sockpuppet tags off their user pages... defying the clear consensus of editors who put it there after they deleted it earlier. As mentioned elsewhere they both also joined up at the same time. I think it's pretty clear they are both sockpuppets of the same person, and based upon the abusive language, the actions of several anon IPs linked to Existentializer previously to support them, and their edits, that they are Existentializer. DreamGuy 13:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

sorry to say this, but just becaue its youyr opinion , and maybe one other's, doesnt make it consensus. lets se if they use the olution i suggested.Gavin the Chosen 13:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

Adraeus has um, done these 2 edits : [11] [12] recently. :-/

You seem to know him better than I do. Maybe you can get him to stop. Would it be ok to ask you to look into it?

Kim Bruning 14:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with moving the comments off of the page, in the mean time, are you talking with Adraeus? I noticed nothing seems to have changed with the votes, and that gives me the creepies. :-/
Hmm, when you're done with that though, you're Feloniousmonks nominator, maybe I could talk with you on irc or per mail sometime? From my own interactions with felonious I became pretty convinced he couldn't be an admin, so I never nominated him. What's changed? Maybe you can convince me. ^^;;
Kim Bruning 22:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New user account for Gabrielsimon

Hi SlimVirgin,

Following the most recent evidence that I added to Gabrielsimon's RfAr, User:Gavin the Chosen/Gabrielsimon is suggesting to me that you may have supported him in the idea of creating a new user account to distance himself from his previous edit history as User:Gabrielsimon.

I understand that you have been trying to mentor/assist him via email, but I would be very surprised if you had actually endorsed this course of action. Perhaps you would care to comment at User_talk:Solipsist#elaborations. -- Solipsist 16:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


the suggestion was actually that it woudl be a fresh start.Gavin the Chosen 16:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

I sent you a rather stream of conciousness e-mail about my feelings on the subject. If you need any clarifications just ask me. gren グレン 17:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire

Rob Church made a suggestion that I put my proposed edit on Vampire and let you decide whether or not to add it since the page is blocked. I'm leaving there now because there is no reason for me to stay, dreamguy is insane and just keeps attacking anyone who posts there. Pukachu 17:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I am still holding out hope for the Vampire article, and that if someone maintains a cool and positive tone that others will follow my lead. I hope that unprotecting the page will allow forward movement, but I'm not at all sure it will. But, I think right now it would be worth a try, if someone can keep and eye on it (sad to say) and be prepared to protect it again if the old foolishness continues. Let me know if you have suggestions for anything else I can do to help. BarkingDoc 19:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slim

Slim, just to let you know, I'm working on the reply to the stuff you left on my page. I hope we can work this out, and I hope we dont have drama, but even if we do, can I just say, you're 100x more polite and more courteous than Mel has ever been. Most of the time he makes up stuff or insults us or threatens us, and its hard ot negotiate with him with his insults and rants. So I can hope we can work this out, but I just want say to thank you for being very classy and polite (unlike the rude Mel) OmegaWikipedia 17:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote is desired

SlimV,

Wagon is behaving himself, and in fact, making most of the contributory or otherwise positive edits. However, he disagrees with me on the point of mentioning that Euthanasia was a hotly debated item. (It WAS hotly debated!)

While it was a "close call" in the past, I think most of the current editors favor my version. In addition, the Chinese and Spanish wikis support my version of the edit -as does a "meta analysis" by Google. Please see Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Heads_up.3B_Neutrality_made_major_changes_in_intro for the discussion, and I would ask for your feedback as one more editor or voice of feedback (not as an admin -I hope that we don't need "admin" assistance again, lol).

While my recent edit which was reverted once, and then tried again with a cogent argument here, is not an edit which greatly impacts the article one way or the other -no matter which way things go -I think I'm right.

I've asked the other editors for help, and think I have support. Please see the talk page, please get along with Wagon and play nice, and vote -either for me, against me, or in between. Thanks.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATES: While User:Neutrality is certainly a hard working admin, he has made questionable edits, placed "hidden comments" asking others to not revert his edits, which were against the concensus reached -and is headed towards going against consensus reached in http://tinyurl.com/7b4k8 this] diff on 21:46, 9 August 2005 in the Terri Schiavo page. I fixed the problem (e.g., here), and don't feel he has violated consensus again, yet his past actions, as discussed on the talk page, make me feel it is appropriate to make a formal record of my complaint if he causes trouble again by his POV editing abuse as an admin.

I have never encountered an admin who needed to be opposed; What am I expected to do? (I've tried discussing it, and getting concensus, etc.) Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 02:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willmcw stalking/ harassing me

I've admittedly only been here for a few days, but I've had some very intense trouble wiht Willmcw. I'm trying to edit some articles, and we've done some battle at Biff Rose. fine. I expected some disagreements at some point. But the thing with Willmcw is threatening, and he is bullying me trying to prove that I am someone who he thinks is meddlesome. I think if he would stop trying to be as pushy and bossy, and understood that this is a place for everyone that perhaps we oculd go further. But he is really overbearing and vandalizing my user talk page, and the like. Admittedly I didn't know I could not simply erase the offensive matter, and so did. NOw I just want him to leave me alone, and he will not. What can I do about this situation with Willmcw? thanks for any help you can offerSteve espinola 00:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your response

I can tell when he divorces himself from his ego, he is a good editor. unfortunately in this case, he is working only in colusion with one side of the story, and that I can handle. but his rampant abuse of my user page is intensly unwatned and undeserved. I would like to mediate it and thought you could suggest something. Take a look at my other edits, instead of blindly trusting him, and give me a chance to prove myself. I am new here, but I do good work, and I doubt if Will had someone as overpowering as himself to battle with when he started herre. Just because someone is branded toruble, does not make it so.Steve espinola 01:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel => Gavin

Hi, Sarah. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon#Ed_Poor_outside_view. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 02:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Still the damge is done. I edited a page about the jacobins, and for one heading I put ch-ch-ch-changes, and someone apparently offended read the talk page where willmcw calls me a vandal, and now everyone just assumes I'm a vandal. I move to be able to remove that libel from my talk page. It's injurious and gives other users the wrong idea about me. I feel that I may have to resort to arbitration to remove the stain of that remark.Steve espinola 05:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update - your guidance as an admin needed

Update - your guidance as an admin needed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20665553&oldid=20664323

--GordonWattsDotCom 02:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] styles

First of all, thanks enormously for your comments. They were much appreciated. I've had so much support from Wikipedians it has been amazing. My email a/c was actually full when I opened it today with messages of support over Skyring et al. (It was around 90% full before. The remaining 10% was filled in one day! People made no secret about what they think of him.

Anyway, re styles I know it probably isn't an area of interest of yours but as a credible contributor I'd value your opinion. Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 03:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:SlimVirgin/Jtstyles