User talk:SlimVirgin/archive18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Where do I start?

This is such a rush. Without question, I would not be here without your selflessness and just plain stubbornness. Best of all, you believed in me. I am truly in your debt. - Lucky 6.9 03:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nablus

Can you please take a look at Guy Montag's 3RR violation [1]? He keeps violating it the same way and no-one is blocking him for it.Heraclius 05:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!
The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion talk 08:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Hi, Slim, sorry for the delay.

  • 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".
Didn't follow this - most articles have song information, or the song?
Oops, I meant the song. Mel claims otherwises on your page that they are equally divided between the two concering the pages in dispute. Please don't listen him. That is a lie. And I should know, since I created those articles or added the headers.
  • He keeps removing headers from single articles.
Can you give me an example of an article where he's removed the headers?
Low (song) and The Trouble With Love Is
  • 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).
I looked through my CD collection and the relevant ones are written in all caps, so I can't tell. Do you have links showing that Junior's Mix is the industry standard?
If you look at www.jenniferlopez.com, you can see the remix notation
  • Chart notation. The MOS allows us to use numbers written out to talk about chart information.
Where does the MoS allow this?
"Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article."

Here are the issues I see with your latest revert:

  • Too much capitalization in the infobox: Single Released, Single Format, Song Length. No need for the second word to be capitalized, because they're not titles.
Well, this is not a major issue, but I can, I'd like to see if we could keep it some extent or work on some compromise. When the tables were put in, I was told they were offficial WikiMusic single tables or something like that. And Ive seen them on other articles.
  • Too much capitalization in headers: References to Other Songs - it should be "other songs."
Well the main part fo that part was the references in that song. So if something has to go, reference should stay
  • "Last line of which," you changed to "latter line of which," which sounds odd. Last line is better.
  • You deleted an n dash, and changed it to - but it should be n dash.
  • You changed "occasions" to "occassions," which is wrong.
  • You changed "because of" to "due to" - "because of" is always better.
  • In the same sentence, you reinsert the word "songs" for the second time, which makes the sentence read badly.
  • You changed the punctuation to the U.S. style, with the period inside the quote marks. While I agree with you on this, and use that style myself, our house style is period and comma outside quote marks (or it was when I last checked the MoS).
  • You changed Carey to Mariah. We can't call her Mariah. House style is surnames.
  • Same sentence: you changed eight to 8. House style is to write out one - nine or ten (I forget which: I do it to ten), then 11, 12, 13 and so on. There may be an exception for chart lists; if there is let me know, or suggest one for the MoS. But this sentence isn't a list, just an ordinary sentence, so eight is correct.
  • You reinserted "this single seems to prove she hasn't quite lost the radio magic within her," which is POV and unencyclopedic. We have to write about these things in a disinterested tone.
  • "The only artist in contention to surpass X" is odd writing.
  • Your "71 total weeks" means the same as 71 weeks. "Total" sounds a bit breathless.
  • " ... making "We Belong Together" the most heard song (in a week) on American radio stations ever." Adding ever is redundant and, again, a little breathless.
Well, like Ive told Mel constatnly, I have no issues with grammar. These just happened to get reverted back. Which is not a good thing, but Mel is guilty of doing the same. Like he just removed a whole section from that same article! Whenever he rolls back he gets rid of so much info.
  • You wrote "Besides The Hot 100," which looks strange, but then you write "the Hot 100 Airplay". Which is it?
Which section are you referring to? Sorry, I didnt see that in the article? If you're confused over the charts though, they are two different charts

The main thing for you is the numbers, right? Can I help you to reach a compromise on that? What exactly do you want to be able to write when it comes to numbers?

The main things for me are chart information, header changes, and remix notation. I have some other issues too, but for now if we can focus on those and compromise, I think that would help OmegaWikipedia 08:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:OmegaWikipedia

As you'll see from his contributions and his recent comments on my Talk page, nothing much has changed. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to take this to RfC — I don't really see any alternative. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Is something wrong with you now? Nothing has changed, because I still disagree with your edits and you still disagree with mine, and I'm still talking with Slim! I think this proves how insecure you are Mel if you have to accuse me of some malicious action. Maybe we should take you to RfC for your removing all those charts stats even though it says we can. OmegaWikipedia 09:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware of the 3RR rule. I got a message from User:Jayjg about reverting my reverted or risk of being reported and I'm immediately reported??? I was actually reverting my 3RR when I got this message from you, so fast that it is impossible for me to undo the 3RR.

The problem is that I challenged an accusation of "passion plays" accusing Jews of deicide and that has not been provided. They keep reverting my edits before concensus is being reached, see its discussion page. They keep adding accusation with no proofs and only red herrings. --Vizcarra 19:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Does it comply with the spirit of wikipedia to warn somebody of breaking a rule and then reporting the violation a minute after the warning? Every time I reverted I ask for the same proofs and it is not given. Compromise is not being reached but they keep adding the comment. I will go ahead and try to revert my last revert I hope it works.--Vizcarra 20:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Well now I can't revert. I try and it keeps appearing as a new edition in history. --Vizcarra 20:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
So what do I do if they keep adding content that I challenged, asked for proof, it wasn't given and keeps being added? If I can't rephrased for NPOV (which is the problem), what else can I do? --Vizcarra 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blah

Blah!

Blah, blah blah! I blah you, very much. Blah you again, (and as far as I am concerned, El C can go blah himself). ;-)

Slim, thank you for being such a great wiki-friend. Your support means alot to me. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make. :)

Func( t, c, e,  ) 22:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

He's just digging his own grave, and lovin' it. Grr! El_C 12:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did you copy me? + Schiavo page calmed down

I think things have calmed down on Schiavo, since FuelWagon and I seems to have come to an agreement which I'm sure others will accept. (I doubt that Neutrality will challenge us all, and hope he won't.)

However, I see your interesting "page intro" quote of Borges here, and wonder if you copied my idea here like a day or 2 ago, in which I offer suggestions to my opponents to help them argue their case.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tznkai

Did you ask his permission before making the adminship nomination? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, on IRC Cat chi? 05:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, Coolcat certainly did ask for permission... Kim Bruning 17:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
In brief: Coolcat asked, I gave a comment along the lines of "I don't mind but Kim does". I meant to continue discussing it and thinking about it, but we had a minor crisis on the chan, and so I lost track of the conversation. Next thing I know, I'm up for RfA and figured I'd atleast give it a shot.--Tznkai 22:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Have reverted the locked version. I don't take kindly to POV pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biff Rose

I believe the main issue at hand is that this user's first real post was claiming to be some one another person who is more heavily involved in the background of the Biff Rose article. This user proceeds to, apparently, vandalize the Biff Rose page (using *very* POV statements and deleting vast portions of it, repeatedly). That was when willmcw got involved. He noticed upon analyzing Espinola's contribution list that he had systemmically gone through the list of archived articles needing to be cleaned and just started adding a word here, removing paragraphs there and ceremoniously stripping the cleanup tags even when articles were a mess. He would then repeatedly strip them whenever some one would come back and change them, and thus he got into edit wars with on several more actively monitored articles. Pretty good for a 3 day old account :o — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 15:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Just a quick note to say thanks for the RfA nomination - nicely organised user & talk pages, btw. I'll always be a fan of European toilet paper roll holder, but asides from that, it's nice to get support from Users with such impressive editing histories. Cheers, Slac speak up! 22:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nablus (2)

I just wanted to say thanks for the intervention on Nablus and the attempt to help solve the impasse. Ramallite (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks good and can even be shortened - thanks so much for your mediation of this. Ramallite (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Probably the best edit I ever made

[2] El_C 08:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syrian terrorism

Hi there. Your restoration of the "sources" in the intro of Syrian terrorism sort of misses out on the discussion that had been going on in the talk page. Specifically, those are not the sources involved. There is a much, much wider range of opinion addressed in the article, and to focus in on two US voices makes the whole article sound like a US-centric rant. The truth of the matter is that the EC was taking a hard-line against Syrian state-sponsored terrorism in 1986 without any need for a U.S. opinion on the matter (thought the U.S. did support the EC at the time).

You can see how this hurts the article by making it sound more POV than it is, I hope, and I ask you to please revert your edit. Thanks. -Harmil 16:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:TheUnforgiven

Thank you for dealing with this person. I can tune out his absurd accusations and racist personal attacks, but his bizaare edits (and accusations of anti-white racism for reverting them) was beginning to grate. --Briangotts (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you. His racially motivated crackpot theories were getting on my nerves.--Wiglaf 14:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for supporting my nomination. AlistairMcMillan 09:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for adding the links.--Nomen Nescio 15:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are secondary sources preferred to primary sources?

I'm having an argument with Zeno over at Maria al-Qibtiyya. There are two stories explaining surah al-Tahrim, one of which involves Maria. Zeno accepts the story re Maria and believes the other story to be false. I'm asking him for proof of an assertion, he's saying he found it in some secondary sources, I say I can't confirm it from primary sources, and ... he's quoting you to the effect that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources.

I do think that he's misunderstood your injunction when you opened the Islam article up to edits again -- you said you wanted good, solid, academic, secondary sources. I read that as you don't want a recrudescence of web-site and chat-forum material; he's reading that as secondary sources are preferred to primary sources.

Please come to the Maria article and clarify your remarks. Of course, if you're going to say that secondary is better than primary, I'll disagree vehemently with you, but we might as well get straight what your opinion is, and what Wikipedia policy is. Zora 12:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vamprie article

dreamGuys at it agin, removing my additions, claiming they are crap when i tried rather hard ot make it a good one, and trying to insert pPOV again. all im trying to do is to help the article along, hes deleting massive sections and alteringthings with zero explaination. please helpGavin the Chosen 01:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

Hey, a while ago you said you'd get back to me about the Islam article issues we'd discussed. Just curious if you're still doing somethng or what... if you're busy just quickly write "busy" so I know what's going on. Thanks. gren ??? 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Gabriel/Gavin

For the record, I did not agree to not "talk to or about" Gabriel, as he apparently claims wa his understanding... I simply volunteered (as in something out of my way just to be nice and not at all required) to "avoid conversation" with him. I'm certainly not going to abandon any articles he might show up on in fear that I'll come into contact with him, and I will revert him if (when) he makes changes I feel are totally inappropriate to articles that have been on my watchlist for a long time. And of course I also think it's only fair that I present evidence at his RfAr if I want to. I've been trying not to just in general because I don't want him to rationalize things to himself as a conspiracy I have against him, but then he already did do that anyway thinking that the ArbCom position was something I told them to say. I'm not under any sort of punishment here, I was just hoping to give him less to come up with bizarre and inappropriate excuses about. DreamGuy 12:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback (Part III)

  • 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".
Oops, I meant the song. Mel claims otherwises on your page that they are equally divided between the two concering the pages in dispute. Please don't listen him. That is a lie. And I should know, since I created those articles or added the headers.
I don't follow, sorry. SlimVirgin <fontcolor="Purple">(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Mel said that the single articles were divided between two headers, but they all said "the song" before he changed many of them to "song information".
  • He keeps removing headers from single articles.
Can you give me an example of an article where he's removed the headers?
Low (song) and The Trouble With Love Is
It does look odd with a header called "The Song" when the article is about the song. I'd say Mel is right about that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't song information just as bad though? Because when I think of "the song", I think of the song aspect of it. But when of think of "song information" it seems odd, because the whole article is about information of the song.
  • If you look at www.jenniferlopez.com, you can see the remix notation
No, I couldn't see it. You need to provide sources showing you have a reason to go against WP house style, so could you provide links please (several of them, not just to one website) show that this is the industry style (link to specific pages, not the home page of a website). Without providing sources, you can't keep changing the house style. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Industry sources: Official Billboard Charts [3]

and ASCAP information [4]

  • Chart notation. The MOS allows us to use numbers written out to talk about chart information.
Where does the MoS allow this?
"Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article."
I need a link please to the page and section. But my guess is that if you concentrate on that one issue with Mel, he may agree to compromise. All I know is that most publishers (and editors here) write one to nine or ten, and thereafter 11, 12, etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been concentrating on that since Day 1, since its my main issue, but he doesnt want to budge. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Section 3, subsection 3.
  • Too much capitalization in the infobox: Single Released, Single Format, Song Length. No need for the second word to be capitalized, because they're not titles.
Well, this is not a major issue, but I can, I'd like to see if we could keep it some extent or work on some compromise. When the tables were put in, I was told they were offficial WikiMusic single tables or something like that. And Ive seen them on other articles.
It goes against house style, and it doesn't look good. Ask Mel on the talk pages of the articles whether he's prepared to compromise on that, but don't revert because of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think in some aspects it does look good, like if you look at the pages where it says "Video director" it looks very odd. Well, is there any way to help this debate? Considering he wont even change things when the MoS says when can, I know this is going to be a hard time convinving him, even though his edits make things look horrible. He's already changed most of the infobox, which I don't agree with, but I'm just asking for a small points there.
  • Too much capitalization in headers: References to Other Songs - it should be "other songs."
Well the main part fo that part was the references in that song. So if something has to go, reference should stay
The issue is whether to write Other Songs or Other songs in headers. It should be the latter. When it doubt, don't capitalize (that goes for everything, not just headers). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, like Ive told Mel constatnly, I have no issues with grammar. These just happened to get reverted back. Which is not a good thing, but Mel is guilty of doing the same. Like he just removed a whole section from that same article! Whenever he rolls back he gets rid of so much info.
Okay, but you have to stop deleting his improvements to the grammar. If you keep doing it, it will count as disruption, which is blockable. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Can you tell him to do the same too? He always reverts things wholesale, and often removes information; like I just had to restore some more information to some article he reverted. He removed chart information for no good reason, and often when he reverts he always get rid of a lot of information.
  • The main things for me are chart information, header changes, and remix notation. I have some other issues too, but for now if we can focus on those and compromise, I think that would help OmegaWikipedia 08:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. He's right about the headers. He's right about the Remix/remix issue as far as house style is concerned, but if you can find sources to back you up, fair enough. I still don't get the chart information thing, and you need to refer me to a specific section of the MoS for the numbers, or explain exactly what you want to Mel, and look for a compromise position. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Until it's sorted, please don't revert him any more. The issue of general grammar and spelling is more important than whether to write Remix or remix, so that's what we need to concentrate on first. If you continue reverting, it will lead to pages being protected, it may lead to you being blocked for disruption, and it may also lead to an RfC, and it's definitely not worth the hassle for you. Try to compromise and stick to house style. If you have a specific article with a particular dispute, please post a note on my talk page, and I'll come and look at it for you. Does that sound fair?

Well, I think the header aspect is even worse in the other way, but indeed, sounds fair. Can you ask him not to revert everything also? I just made some edits (which I dont think were wholesale reverts), and I bet he is going to cause another edit war. Whenever he reverts, he often gets rid of info (like I just had to restore something right now, cause he didnt even look to see what he reverted) Tell him to stop reverting me too. If he a problem with them, he should let us know on the talk page. Can you watch out for him too, and tell him to stop it? But yes, I agree with you, revert wars go nowhere and leave everyone screwed.

SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Trey Stone Gang

I'd like to give you a heads up on the latest addition to the Trey Stone gang, User:Ray Lopez. He is an abusive editor, lying on edit summaries, making personal attacks and pushing the boundaries of even his own circle's rather hazy notions of good wikiquette. I'm going to be filing an RFC come monday, but will need enough support to make it stick. Stirling Newberry 15:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging

Hi Slim. Apologies for both the late reply and also if I caused an edit conflict with your image recent upload and my hasty tagging. I use the advanced RC look, and sometimes open the tab of new users to mark their uploads accordingly. I was doing so at the time when your upload appeared and as it was untagged, I fiddled :) Keep up your great work here. I'm just tucking in and straighting up any jagged edges. Cheers. -- Longhair | Talk 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the Vampire article

I tried editing the article, and restoring massive sections that have been destroyed needlessly, but the other involved editor refuses to see that its not good to exclude that information, and calls me blind, rather then ghet in trouble, i have asked Ed poor's opinion, and i have placed a notice on the RFC, for i belewive thathte other editor is attempting to Soapbox, on this and other articles, just look at his edit summaries, some seem might strange. This is an ongoing problem, as he refuses to see any other viewpont then his ownGavin the Chosen 08:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel/Gavin

And he's just back from his ban and blind reverting everything I did on Vampire and Otherkin back to a version before he left, which on vampire means he's yanking out a number of changes made by other editors to get back to the one he did yesterday. DreamGuy

And he's using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy for personal attacks. DreamGuy 08:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

He's currently involved in a revert war with Toshiba at Otherkin - seems to be reverting reasonably neutral language back to a POV edit. Vashti 09:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page, violations of 3RR don't have to have the exact same reverts each time, or else all someone has to do is split the same revert over additional edits to get around it. Previous 3rr cases for him counted if any single part of the whole thing was reverted four or more times, and he has that easily, with the restoration of the Modern Real Vampirism section, the improper capital V on vampire in the vampire subculture subhead, and so forth.

And his splitting of the edit caused a whole section to be duplicated. (The drinking blood section is also under pathology.) If you really don't want to additionally block him for it beyond the 24 he already has for the RfC reverts, I'd be fine with that if you undid his last two edits to clean that all up, because I can't get in there and get rid of that mess without violating 3RR myself.

As far as articles he edit wars with me on, that would be a long list. Most common would be Vampire and Otherkin of course, as he did those today evem but he was active in the past blind reverting me on Mythology, Vampire lifestyle, Lilith, Witchcraft, Werewolf, Therianthropy and probably others. DreamGuy 09:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] He's acting up again

Slim, could you please tell Mel to quit acting up? He is reverting edits again wholesale! Someone is trying to add content and he is just reverting them without looking at them. At the same time, I thought it would be understood that I wouldnt revert his major edits while we were in the middle of this debate, and he wouldnt touch mine, but he continues to do it. Can you please help? Thank you. And he is doing this to me too again content wise ! I just added some content, and he is reversing content again! Is there a way you can help me a file an RFC against him? I don't know why he keeps doing this. Maybe a better idea would be for you to protect all Mariah Carey articles? That way no one can touch them until this debate is over? OmegaWikipedia 12:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political epithets

Can you please reconsider your marking out of sourced information? The Zionist rag comment was indeed from an anonymous editor, but the rest wasn't. The source I listed was an article called View from the Sofa. Here's the specific quote: Baker bandies around the latest buzzword of the Islamophobes- Islamofascism as coined by that famous liberal Christopher Hitchens (so left he’s right) and there’s an air of smug vindication in his whole article. Yes the Zionist rag comment is offensive but once again it's in the COMMENTS section.Heraclius 20:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the Judeofascism section. It contains the claim that most Jewish people find the term deeply offensive. I'm sure that this is true, and it seems like common knowledge. However, when I try to add a similar, obvious claim to the Islamofascism section I am asked for a citation of every single fact. I think that the best compromise here is to include both statements in both sections or remove both.Heraclius 20:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ALAN TURING 1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:ALAN TURING 1.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

You have blocked me and failed to deal with the vandalism I was attempting to prevent. Politeness prevents further comment. Coqsportif 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel's just back from a block

And doing all the same edit warring AGAIN, including Otherkin and Vampire. This is just so tedious. DreamGuy 12:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

And he just violated 3RR on Vampire yet again. DreamGuy 13:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
did not. any edit that was a r eversion was half of something, then i took the edit that soemeone else did and re added that , sopt hat your foolish deletion of MY work wouldnt be. becasue you stubbvornly wont seem to allow anyone you donbt agree with to contribute ANYTHING to articles you have your filthy hands in.Gavin the Chosen 13:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Splitting reverts into sets of two edits does not in any way change the fact that you are still reverting. I mean, come on Gabriel, stop trying to come up with ridiculous excuses here. You changed it back the same way you had it before 4 times in a few hours, that's a 3RR violation. This has been explained to you before, and you were blocked before when you tried to use an excuse like that, so you should kno better by now. DreamGuy 14:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
reinsterting infomration thatyou delete for no valid reason ( the resons cited keep shifting, check the edit summaries, thereafore, no valid reason){ is NOT reversion, its simply eaasier to use two steps to reinsert the data then to use one, it saves me a lot of pain in typing whne i otherwise woulnt have to. whatsd your latest excuse for hating me? found morethen below for hating me? or have you forgotten how to imagine things? Gavin the Chosen 15:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


to slimvigin - i really am sorrty that all tihs crap has to loitter ytour talk page.,,.. you didnt do anything to deserve it.Gavin the Chosen 15:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

im not edit warring, your removiong my worthwhile edit, and you probably havnt even read it. as for Othetkin, the change isnt w ar until SOMEONE starets reverting out of turn, not to mention totally unnessesarily, and IF you bothered to read what DragonflySixtyseven said on your page, youd be convinced as well.Gavin the Chosen 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I did read it, and was not convinced, and neither was anyone else on that page. You have to stop assuming that you are right and acting like you can do no wrong. DreamGuy 14:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

as for the vampire 3rr thing examine the edit history, edits are done in pairs, one to change back to before his reversion which is u=njust, and a second ( and sometimes third) to repair any accidental deletions , see, becasue my edits are so spread out, its easier to revert, and then re add the comments and chanbges of other users. its a two step process tha hes trying o get me in crap for.Gavin the Chosen 14:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

see, hes so stubborn hes edit warring on this very page!Gavin the Chosen 14:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I've reported you for 3RR violation on this page (Gavin, not SlimVirgin). And it is a personal attack, because of the POV phrasing. Furthermore, it's DreamGuy's section title, and editing it is tantamount to editing DreamGuy's comment, something you should bloody well know not to do. ~~ N (t/c) 14:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

YEah well, guess what, thats not what i was trying to do, he keep whining whever he cant make me be quiet on hos pet project pages, and so he keeps trying to get me blokced, well ues w what, this time, and this time and THIS time., i havnt done anything wrong. theres no such thing as 3rr on talk pages.Gavin the Chosen 14:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, there is.... --Kiand 15:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
There is too. And you do a good enough job of getting yourself blocked without DreamGuy's help. I suggest you take the recommendation that's been made a zillion times to heart, and not revert anything at all. As it is, the ArbCom will not look kindly on this incident. ~~ N (t/c) 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

please forgive this language but, how the hell am is supposed to add anything here if people keep removing t what i place here weithout readiing it??(which is what dreamguy does to me, becasue, franly he doesnt like me, and i DONT know why, becasue i NEVER did anything to him) tell me, how am i uspposed to add things if people remove them? then im just WASTING MY TIMEGavin the Chosen 15:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's enough. I do read what you post. And you NEVER did anything against me? What the hell? You vandalized my user page, filed an RFC against me, erased my talk page comments, followed me around on articles you had never touched before to revert all the edits I made each day, hopped on a sockpuppet and tried to get a Request for Arbitration filed under false pretenses, you constantly make personal attacks on me and if Ihonestly tried to list them all I'd be here forever... And still I try to be civil to you, try to explain things to you, tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by agreeing to avoid commenting on your talk page to see if that might help (this was completely voluntary by the way, I'm not under any RfCs and nowhere close to an RfAr or anything else)... You need to grow up and fly straight. Period. Stop the nonsensical excuses. Read the policies. Follow them. LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE TELL YOU. Even Slim and Ed aren't going to put up with your shenanigans much longer. DreamGuy 15:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

1- i nnever vandalized ANYTHING, and inthe caseof youruser page , IASKED YOU AQUESTIONm, and you didnt answer, then when i asked again you called it vadnalism. ever consider thatyour wrong? 2 - you TRIED to be civil to me? WHEN?????? youve been a pain in the ass ever since i got here, always with the insults and sarcasm

3 - I am not hte one who followed YOU aropund, why do you make the accusations based on what YOU did to me?

4 - YES i filed an RFC against you, casue you were anbd ARE incurably incivil and frankly your acting like avindictive asshole. there are other users who agree with me on that, and, WE tried to make peace, but you kept right on being as asshole.

4 - i make some mistakes, and yes , i made a mistake with a VFD.

5 - how dare yuou tell ME tpo grow up? your constantly actiungimmature, and skirting blocks basd on techincalities. if anyojne should leave anbd grow up, its you. i treat everyoine nicely if they treat me nicely. im very polite to everyone. except that ive lost my patience with you, DreamGuy, i lost my paience with your constant and incurable incivllity MONTHX ago, and even back then i didnt do anything or say anythingf, , and thus was born an unsuccessfull RFC. there will be another, Gavin the Chosen 15:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

to whoever deleted this, its not a personal attack if its EXACTLY what f goes on. dont delete this.Gavin the Chosen 15:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel/Gavin's 3RR violation on Otherkin on anonymous IP

And it's all but certain that User:69.195.126.19 is User:Gavin the Chosen on an IP address jumping in to revert Otherkin back to the way he had it. The IP's previous edits are exactly the same topics Gavin started out editing when he got his new name and look like they date back to before he registered the first time, and, come on, what are the odds that someone who hasn't been here since April who wrote on Canadian residential school system would suddenly show up to revert to Gabriel's version? DreamGuy 16:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

WITCH HUNT! thata ll i have to say.Gavin the Chosen 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Kindly remove your head from the sand and admit your wrongdoing. The ArbCom will not look kindly on your actions today, but they will look much less kindly on you if you deny what you did. ~~ N (t/c) 16:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Gabriel, yet again you have been caught violating Wikipedia rules of conduct, and yet again you have chosen, when called upon it, to lie and impugn the character of another editor. Here is a link to a comment you signed as "Gabriel Simon," while editing anonymously as 69.195.126.19.
Slim, I would like to suggest that this edit to "Otherkin" violates the terms of the agreement under which you and Ed agreed to mentor Gabriel. I'm not sure that this is working. --Craigkbryant 16:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

--I have taken the liberty of copying the conversation above this line to Gabriel's RfC page, which has a section documenting all of Gabe's sock puppet accounts. --Craigkbryant 16:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

of course is not working, a;lk this does isget me bloicked over and over and ovber and over and over and pover and over and over and over. how is that helping ANUYTHING??? all it does is serve to annoy the crap out of me, beause the slightest problem makes me go away AGAIN. how is that hleping m,e at akll????? and how is it fair to lock talk pageS?Gavin the Chosen 16:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


people actua;lly never do what i requested nicely and then insisntaly, all i wish to have happen is to make that particular asshole go away, and otherleave e in peace. this palce is supposed to be a community of c some kind, wwell, mayube we need a bvillage idiot, but WHY SDOES IT HAVE TO BE ME???????????????Gavin the Chosen 16:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You get blocked over and over and over because you keep making the same mistakes over and over and over. Sadly, that's all there is to it. Vashti 16:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Intelligent Design

Wanted to insert some references but apparantly am unable. Could they be added? Have placed the entire anti-ID section, including my suggestions, here:

Anti-ID

--Nomen Nescio 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Aposthia

I see you voted to delete Aposthia in its recent VFD. I've now substantially rewritten the article, removing the dubious POV statements and (I think) sourcing everything. I had to wade through several pages of Googlecruft to get any decent information about it, but it is out there. The fact that so many of the top Google results are highly biased anticircumcision sites makes it all the more important that Wikipedia has an informative and neutral article on the subject. Hopefully you can be persuaded to change your vote! Thanking you, Soo 17:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Talbot reference is indirect from [5] (number 26). I'm not sure on the Wikipedia procedure when referring to sources not available online, and don't have a copy of the journal myself. Since Wikipedia isn't supposed to restrict itself to its current Internet incarnation, I would think that paper references would be treated just the same, but really I don't know. If it's likely to cause controversy then maybe we should omit it and make a request for better information on the Talk page. Soo 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please unprotect Vampire and Otherkin

You protected both pages, but if you check the history and talk pages you'll see that Gabriel/Gavin was the only person holding them up. In both cases he was reverting back to what he wanted from a couple of days before. The protect notice says to work it out on the talk page. He's blocked for 48 hours, and there's nothing to work out if he's gone. Heck, and if he's back he doesn't ever work with anyone else, as he's proven time and time again. All the editors opposed his change on Otherkin, and most of his changes were totally opposed on Vampire, the only thing there partially under dispute was a separate mention for people who believed they were vampires instead of just acting like it, which it was agreed to put off until Talk:Vampire lifestyle hashed it out, since they were the primary article involved. DreamGuy 17:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

If I see that many Blue Bonnets, I immediately think Texas! --Kim Nevelsteen 19:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AVD

He doesn't seem to learn, he is again editing Talk:Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada&action=history]

Anyway, I had thought that Fred Bauder banned AVD for a day for editing the Talk page on that tricolour article but given his subsequent comments it seems I was wrong (so I don't know why AVD was banned for a day) so sorry for my misstatement. Homey 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, you're ahead of me. Homey 20:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli West Bank barrier

If possible, would you mind taking a look at my current disagreement with AladdinSE there? AladdinSE insists that there is a consensus there that you are part of. Thx. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] email

Hello, I sent you the e-mail one month ago but I still did not get any reply. I would like to get reply from you.

--Flowerofchivalry 19:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asra Nomani

Could rather make Asra Nomani the main page for this author rather than Asra Q. Nomani, the reason being that users would be searching for Asra Nomani more than Asra Q. Nomani .--CltFn 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Great Administration

Barnstar of Diligence
Barnstar of Diligence

A Barnstar of Diligence to you as...your work is diligent and invaluable to Wikipedia. D. J. Bracey (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the note. D. J. Bracey (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree! Thanks for diligent administration. -Willmcw 18:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Thanks for your reply. I just resent the mail to the address you provided.

--Flowerofchivalry 14:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Racialism

Racialism has been unprotected and Sam Spade has been busy. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yours is a useful profile

Saw your comment on Wikistalking (why does there always have to be people like that?!) and noticed your useful profile. Thanks for all the helpful links; I never walk away from Wikipedia without feeling like I've learned something. --J. J. 06:28, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

[edit] User:Liftarn at List of political epithets

I have run into what I consider disruptive behaviour and WP:POINT at List of political epithets. In my view, User:Liftarn has been removing material and asking for citations for material which has already been cited, and has been insisting on citations exclusively for, and inserting NPOV notices in, Jewish-related epithets, when no citations have been provided for any of the other epithets on the page, and when he has raised no specific objections in Talk:. Could you possibly take a look? Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look

I know you are probably very busy. But please take a look at Apostasy_in_Islam and Din (Arabic term). I really will appreciate your opinion and I will abide by it. I am trying to work with Heraclius but he seems upset and is becoming totally unreasonable. So if you have the time, please take a look. Thanks. Nickbee 19:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop coddling Gabriel/Gavin and punishing real editors here in the process

Regarding your asking me on my talk page if I would willingly stop editing certain articles because Gabriel doesn't want me on them... You cannot be seriously asking me that, can you? I absolutely, positively will not abandon articles (especially ones where it is always a battle to keep them NPOV from the active agenda of editors pushing a pro-pseudoscience POV) to satisfy someone who should be banned by now. I am not going to agree to stop editing any article anywhere to help out someone who is a constant breaker of the policies and rules here. And, frankly, to even ask me is ridiculous. You keep treating me as if I am somehow under equal punishment as he is even though he's been blocked, what, 13 times now and got off being blocked several other times when he could have been and I've not done anything wrong. It's way long past the point when you should have stopped coddling him. I thought he agreed to a month ban, so why is he even here right now? DreamGuy 20:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

And, look, Gabriel is back from a 48 hour block not too long ago and already again violated 3RR on Otherkin! How many times do we have to go through this? Do I need to file yet another report on him, or can you just go ahead and block him right away? There's absolutely no reason anyone should voluntarily give this guy anything he wants, as he gives nothing in return. DreamGuy 20:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

...oops... didnt meanto violate anything, but wihout hte presnce of m pov pushing DreamGuy, me and hipocrite were making some real progess.Gavin the Chosen 20:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gabrielsimon

A couple of people are putting pressure on me to disregard a vote by Gabrielsimon in the VfD on Religion and schizotypy. I said I'd be sympathetic to the idea if it was proved that he is a habitual sock puppeteer, for instance through consensus on WP:ANI or by declaration from User:David Gerard. This apparently isn't available but DreamGuy tells me he understands that Gabrielsimon has admitted to abusive sock puppetting to you and Ed Poor. If you can confirm this I'll probably take it seriously and ask David for confirmation. Meanwhile I'm inclined to view Gabrielsimon's vote as valid and am not minded to revise my closing of that VfD. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

im the only user ac cound that the user Gabrielsimon is using. the othet personalities were failed attempts to make new starts. a paltry excuse, but its the only one thats honest.Gavin the Chosen 21:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your confirmation, SlimVirgin.

Gavin, I noted that you attempted to vote twice on the VfD for Religion and schizotypy. I discounted Khulhy because it failed my pre-votecounting authenticity check (as did hipocrite). The fact that someone struck through the Khulhy vote did not affect my decision--I step through the history recording votes as I go, in a stage I execute after I've decided whose votes I will accept, which I decide by examining the editing history of the voters. I think your case is on the edge and in the circumstances I will ask for advice from your mentors who are also both administrators. The three of us should be able to reach a decision.

SlimVirgin, in view of Gavin/Gabriel/Khuhly's attempt to sway the vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religion and schizotypy, should I disregard his vote? I already discounted that of Khulhy in my original decision, because it didn't pass my authenticity check. I also discounted some other votes that failed the same check--notably the nominator, User:hipocrite, and one of the main complainants, User:Hamster Sandwich. See my talk page for a full explanation of how I reached my decision. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

i tyhink it would be fair to disregard the extra vote, which i placed there.Gavin the Chosen!~

[edit] Block request

Mikkelson5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) needs to be blocked for this edit. You'll notice by hir userpage that User:Witkacy is of the opinion that s/he is a sock of banned User:Zivinbudas. Tomer TALK 21:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked him permanently for that hate comment. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, for your quick response. Tomer TALK 21:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

Hello Slim Virgin, thanks for protecting the Rosemary Kennedy page. The comments you see there now are from the left wing editors who constantly revert to their POV. If you follow the history you will see many wiki users with accounts in support of the link, they revert from these folks too. Thanks 24.147.97.230 01:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront and wikipedia.

See this thread Homey 22:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I think congratulations are in order. (From the aforementioned thread):

Re: Zionist Cabal taking over Wikipedia
Wikipedia Intelligence Report #001
The following is an incomplete list of those suspected to be members of, or to be the "useful idiots" of, the so-called "Elders of Wikipedia" (the Zionist cabal which has Wikipedia in its grip). Those at the top of the list are definite members and are the most ruthless and vicious of the bunch; those at the bottom I'm less sure about. Monitor the activities of the first 5 on the list (watch their user contribution pages and their user talk pages) and you'll have a good idea of what the entire gang is up to.
The suspected "Elders of Wikipedia" are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jfdwolff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gzuckier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IZAK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eliezer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TShilo12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Max_rspct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ezra_Wax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MathKnight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leifern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humus_sapiens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fintor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuratowski's_Ghost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhatJew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RachelBrown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpgordon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdavidb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Themindset
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_McClenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RyanFreisling


Homey 22:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two things.

One, that you blocked User:Coqsportif warrants an unspoken barnstar for protecting Wikipeida from those using it as a playground. Two, do the the bluebonnets on your User page indicate your being a Texan, or is it just a pretty photo? Shem(talk) 22:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Please dont blanket revert without seeing Talk page first. 62.252.0.7 10:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration notice

Notice posted here. Rangerdude 18:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] different Arbitration

I have put DreamGuy up for arbitratioon for incivillity. addevidance at your convieniance, or just repair my formatting if it suits youGavin the Chosen 02:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

by the way, cute puppy on the picture here, is it yours?Gavin the Chosen 02:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compliment

You're hypercool. You make me want to be a better person. Thanks  :) --noösfractal 03:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] user hipocrite

is it possible to explain to that user that being polite is kind of paramount, and ordering other people around is not assuming good faith or polite in any way? i am growing impatient with that users lack of decorum.Gavin the Chosen 04:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Just putting in my two cents here, but I can't see where Hipocrite has been impolite with you. I think he's been very patient and polite. It might be helpful if you pointed out some edits that you took offence at? Vashti 09:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FOC

It's been a long time but he's back. Judging from the amount of crap he spews we ALL have a good idea that he's not editing in good faith, so I'm wondering if I can simply treat all his edits as vandalisms (since they've been systematically disproven) an revert them on the spot. It's very difficult to work within the 3RR system while he games it by using anon IPs. -Hmib 05:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE:3RR

My first edit at 20:19, 20 August 2005 was not a revert. I deleted the personal attack against Ishihara which got mixed in to the bigger conflict, which was the sangokujin and apology statement issue.

My reverts from there on were to that version, without the personal attack on Ishihara.

If you look my my contribs, or the history page on Ishihara, my edits on that article were, from latest to earliest,

not what FoC had on the complaint page.

FoC wanted to redefine sangokujin using his version of the word, which is not found on the actual page on sangokujin on wikipedia. Also, he added that Ishihara apologised, without providing any proof whatsoever that he did. -Hmib 20:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In this version made on 17 Aug I overlooked the POV in that sentence. I corrected that in the first edit that FoC accuse me of making which is on 20:19, 20 August 2005, meaning wasn't a revert but an edit. Following that there were 3 reverts by me, a total of 3 reverts. 3RR was not violated. I did not write that statement, an anon IP did, which I did not see and overlooked because at the same time FoC was adding his own POV to it. In none of the 4 edits FoC accused me of making were that POV sentence present. -Hmib 21:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
In all edits tried to add that Ishihara said he respected French culture, of which there is no evidence of. See one of his edits here. -Hmib 21:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, don't believe Hmib. I have never said or written or spoken that Ishihara apologised anything. For "sangokujin," his edit is completely wrong. I looked up a Japanese dictionary that is the same explanation of mine. He cannot speak Japanese so I'm wondering where dis he get that idea from. I don't know because he has never cited his source. Also, I told Hmib that his edition is insulting and unencyclopedic but he does not listen anything. Flowerofchivalry 21:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable comment. All of my edits are based on credible sources, but I will try to cite the sources more clearly than before. The edition you quoted above is based on [6] here. This page is in Japanese but this website is the first source because they write down everything he said on press release.

His reverts violates 3RR as I showed. I would like to ask you to take appropriate action. Flowerofchivalry 22:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


I fixed the problem. I hope it works... If there is any problem, please let me know.

--Flowerofchivalry 22:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebration!

Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration
Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence

Why did you go in and restore the link to a section of an article that was a fork file for an already existing article? Once they go to that one it just says there to go to the other one for more info, so it ends up being a wasted link. DreamGuy 22:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You wanted one link and he wanted the other, so I inserted both. The articles do seem to have different content, and a see also isn't worth edit-warring over. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
You are just encouraging him in making a fork section instead of working on the main article. I just put a merge notice in, but I expect it will probably go uncommented upon as the conversation I tried to start up there weeks back went unreplied to. DreamGuy 22:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • sigh*. He never stops. He renames an article, then complains because it is referred to elsewhere by the old name. He tries to delete a link and when that is stopped tries to get different articles on different topics merged!!! (And doesn't even bother to put the merge notice in!!!) Oh well. Thanks for putting in the right links to the article. Both are relevant. Both deal with the topic. One deals in detail with one allegation. The other covers all the allegations against Albert Victor in a larger piece on urban myths and royalty. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 23:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
No... the problem here is that you never stop... you created a duplicate section in an article you made without checking to see if other articles already existed. You insisted upon linking your version as the supposed "main article". You gave the article an inaccurate title. You didn;t respond to talk page comments placed there a long time ago. You didn't check to make sure that the link was still accurate. And you still don;t understand that "urban myths" is not a real phrase. And you do all this without trying to discuss the issue at all, just blindly reverting things back to your way, making false accusations, failing to read the edit comments, and then complaining as if you were the one bein put upon. If you had simply read the comments on your article talk page, or the edit comments, or made talk page comments of your own, you could have avoided this. You didn't... and after all that you filed a false 3RR charge. So please stop your bellyaching, learn how to work with other editors, read up on policies and learn to follow them. DreamGuy 01:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Slim! Why does Wikipedia attract such people??? I've spent tonight dealing with a banned nutter waging war on Wikipedia with his bunch of sockpuppets. Sometimes it seems like Nutter Central!!! lol. No wonder DreamGuy (God knows whose dream???) has that reputation. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 01:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FoC, again and again

Hi Slim, I just wanted to thank you for your patience with FoC. Even though there really is no point in listening to anything he says you went beyond your call of duty and tried to resolve conflicts. Though given the extremist agenda FoC wants to push onto wikipedia, I'm afraid your patience would wear thin too, sooner or later. Well, just saying you have my thanks. -Hmib 22:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coqsportif

Two new accounts, User:Jakemelen and User:Toshiba, seem to have appeared where Coqsportif left off (Michael Dutton Douglas and Self-hatred). Only speculation, of course. Shem(talk) 23:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Bonus points for using the word "buttplug" in an edit summary? [7] Shem(talk) 04:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

[edit] 3RR

I fix the link. Thank you very much for your patience, but it's not a false allegation.

--Flowerofchivalry 05:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

I sent you an e-mail... with my e-mail in it... two in fact... maybe then one should work? gren ??? 11:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] thanks!

forthe kind words!, id give you a barn star, but i dont know how.Gavin the Chosen 17:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, I agree. For dealing kindly but firmly with Gabriel/Gavin, I think you deserve this (repeated) award:
~~ N (t/c) 21:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A request

Perhaps you might be willing to restore the Wikiproject to this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency&oldid=21575756? It's been protected due to bad faith edit warring, but it was protected to the wrong version (by accident?)

Thanks. Erwin Walsh


[edit] new evidance

since your busy with admin things, i went and found the new evdance that was required... hope its okay.Gavin the Chosen 02:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] List of ethnic groups

Hi, I noticed your name on the recent changes, and I'm looking for an admin online. I don't want to go through the 3RR page because I've already spent ages on this and I don't want to have to do all the diffs and whatnot (and I might be in breach myself on the strictest reading possible). Could you have a quick look at the page and if you agree that the anon has broken the 3RR, block him/her for maybe an hour? There's no need to throw the book at him/her because he/she is editing in good faith, it seems to me, but has gone way beyond the norm. I've warned him/her on his/her talk but that fell on stony ground. Cheers. Clair de Lune 04:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, mine included a couple of compromise versions that were not reverts as such. Only an extremely unsympathetic reading would have that down as four reverts, because I'm very careful not to step over the line. The only reason I avoided the 3RR page was to avoid the time and effort that I would have to waste in a/ assembling the "evidence" and b/ bickering over it. So I'll take my chances on your being extremely unsympathetic, especially since I warned the anon and have not had to be warned myself. Please take a look. Clair de Lune 04:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Now I need to find someone to revert it for me. It's a PITA when you are faced with an editor who has taken you up to three and keeps reverting. Clair de Lune 04:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amalekite

I don't want to war with you, but what, on Wikipedia, has this user done wrong? — Matt Crypto 07:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not taking any side in this but in the interest of avoiding an edit war and the inevitable 3RR violations that will result in 2 or 3 edits for each of you I urge you two to talk this out instead of just reverting each other. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 07:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I don't like getting into conflict, particularly with things like block wars and protect wars, so I'm unhappy about this. But in this case I think that this is simply unjust; we should block people indefinitely based on their actions, not based on what they say on other websites, and not because they're neo-Nazis. If it is, as you assert, clear that he's trying to disrupt Wikipedia, then it will surely quickly become apparent, and we can block him then, right? But otherwise, I think it must be innocent until proven guilty. — Matt Crypto 07:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


I take your point, Matt, but I feel you ought to have discussed this with the blocking admin, rather than undoing the block. I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked for being a member of Vanguard News Network or Stormfront, but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies. I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, perhaps: I did look at his posts on the forum beforehand, and part of what he said was, "if you're going to join in on editing the Mullins article (which I hope you do), follow the rules of the place - no insults or personal attacks, no Jew-bashing (though they so richly deserve it), try to keep a Neutral Point-of-View (NPOV), and stay cool, no matter how hard they push your buttons. Otherwise, you'll blow your lid and they'll just resort to the classic trick of labelling you an "anti-Semite" or a "neo-Nazi" and using that as a pretext for censoring everything you say." People say all sorts of things, and whether they mean it is hard to tell. I think it's best to ignore how people threaten to behave off Wikipedia, and judge how they actually behave on Wikipedia. I guess the worst thing about summarily blocking these people is that it gives them some sort of legitimate complaint that they've been censored or persecuted; it's much better, I would argue, to let them condemn themselves by their own editing, even briefly, so that everyone can see why they are blocked. And yes, perhaps I should have talked with HOTR, but I was a little ticked off; it's probably best I leave this be for a while. — Matt Crypto 08:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC?

Hello! Might I ask why you deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:girlvinyl? It seems to have two people who certify it. Yes, I suppose one of them was a bit too late, but the fact that people made a revert war about it indicates there's some dispute. Or maybe it should be sent to mediation instead? Radiant_>|< 08:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, I entirely agree that RFCs are far too often a vessel for personal attacks (someone recently told me that RFCs serve no purpose other than to let angry users vent steam... I'm sure that wasn't the intent behind them but it does seem to be the case at times). I just noticed the short revert war on the RFC mainpage so I figured I'd ask you. Thanks for explaining. Radiant_>|< 08:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

User:Zephram Stark and his Merry Band of Sockpuppets has returned to reimpose his original reasearch into Terrorism. I've reached my revert limit, sockpuppets or no, and his obstnacy bordering on the delusional is really starting to piss me off. So you might want to take a look while I call it a night. --Calton | Talk 15:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] how

how am i to attempt to make changes , if the user named hipocrite will use all three of his daily reverts in order to censor me, and then refuse to discuss anything on top of that, AND insult me on top of that? how can any improovements be made in that situation?Gavin the Chosen 05:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Gee, perhaps if you made good edits, I wouldn't revert them? Hipocrite 05:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

a "good edit" isnt alwys one you HAVE to agree with. I do make good edits, and you revert them without discussion. I wasnt asking you on this page anyway. so lets not clutter this nice users talk page with trashtalk, beforeyou begin , or perhaps, continue. see, madam, this is what im talking about, hes basically unwilling to discuss ANYTHING.Gavin the Chosen 05:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the revert

Hi SlimVirgin! Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nanjing Safety Zone

Hi Slim, I noticed you unprotected that page. Shortly after FoC came in and reverted with no discussion to a version 2 months old, bypassing about a dozen edits by various editors to clean up grammar, spelling etc. Protecting that page forever is definitely not an option, but I'm at a loss what to do here. -Hmib 06:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. I already mail the situation to her, but the article is highly unencyclopedic and kindergarden student's work. The problem is that Hmib has never provided any single sources so that I cannot discuss the situation very well.

--Flowerofchivalry 06:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Hamster Sandwich. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Yet another my dear. Please check user contributions. Spam and user insults with four letters and starting with an F. NOTE! There is a "." behind his name and is NOT the same as Hamster Sandwich (talk · contribs)--Kim Nevelsteen 16:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for handling that imposter with speed! My first, and I hope only one. I'm guessing that there has to be some subtle difference in the name? Well thanks again SlimVirgin, I appreciate your help. Hamster Sandwich 16:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

nextt hing you know there will be a user called hanster sandwitch with mustard, or some crazy variation...Gavin the Chosen 16:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Argument

I am not exactly sure that I understand what his issue is. I agree with you that an RfC should only be used against editors who are disrupting the Wikipedia, although I would suggest that it does not need to be POV warriors or trolls, because it can also be used against vandals. (It is true that an admin can block a vandal, but an RfC could serve the purpose of being a step toward hard-banning the vandal.)

It is true that FuelWagon did write a user conduct RfC recently, and is hoping that it will not be a step toward arbitration. I think that he was justified in writing it, because the user in question is a POV warrior and has some aspects of the troll nature. I think that he is prepared to go to arbitration if necessary, and is hoping that it will not be necessary. If so, it is a good faith RfC.

The RfC that was filed against me, where FuelWagon endorsed my response, is an example of a bad faith RfC. The POV warriors who posted it presumably have no intention of going to arbitration because they either know that the ArbCom is part of the left-wing cabal, or simply are seeing if they can intimidate me into withdrawing two (certified) RfCs, or at least into allowing them to intimidate everyone else by shouting loudly. I don't understand what he is saying. I know that he and you and I are on the same side of trying to keep the Wikipedia civil and neutral and encyclopedic. Robert McClenon 19:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in India

Greetings! Would you mind looking at the external link on Islam in India to determine whether or not it's appropriate to leave on the article? Someone has pointed out that the link is too biased to be suitable; it appears to be, but I'm not entirely sure and though I might seek out your opinion. Besides, it is an excuse to post on your talk page, since I rarely run into you on-wiki, and leave you a little Image:WikiThanks.png for all the work you do around here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Image:Miko dwg 1.jpg

I found this picture on WIkipedia, and I thought that you may like it on your site. Well, because your site is so decorated and all.

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rosemary Kennedy

Thank you for unprotecting. The protection request was fraudulent, and I will add it to the RfAr. There may be an honest request to protect. Robert McClenon 01:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC in user subspace

Hi, Slim, hope you're doing well. This is the short story: After my RFC against Jguk expired, it was copied to Amgine's space, then later put on VFD by a person uninvolved with that RFC. The RFC copy survived the VFD. Let me know if you need more details. Maurreen (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC
) Maurreen (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Depending on what the content actually is, you may be able to invoke CSD#A6. Radiant_>|< 09:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin agreement

Thanks for making the agreement with Gavin explicit. It's really helpful to have it right there in writing. FreplySpang (talk) 03:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • FYI: You are a better (wo)man than I. Thanks for taking this on. I honestly hope it works out, but hold out little hope. Wikibofh 04:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

I'm feeling utterly beleaguered at Islam and Abu Bakr. Zeno and an anon have added a sentence in the first para of Islam saying that Islam IS Islamism. AladdinSE wants a Sunni version of events at Abu Bakr and is prepared to revert endlessly to get his way. All the sensible editors -- the ones who aren't pious zealots or anti-Islamic crusaders -- seem to have disappeared. Could you help out at Islam? Zora 07:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I hereby award you...

This is a special award created for fighting vandalism on my user pages. Wear it with pride, brave Wiki-warrior! Hamster Sandwich 01:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The Sandwich of Diligence  ::: Awarded for Unswerving Strength and Tenacity
The Sandwich of Diligence  ::: Awarded for Unswerving Strength and Tenacity

I strongly beleive that Brandenn commited suicide because when he grew up he start having problems understanding what is right and what is wrong, you are told, but when you see reality,in your mind grows big conflict, when you have the intelligence to comprehend like he did and you realize that menkind is doing everything against a natural purpose and you realize that everything you were told was right, does not match, then you try to evade reality, because reality sucks, humans do not understand the purpose of life, his life, and the proof is, what are we doing to everything around us, was the world made for sale? think think think Gabriel


Looks like Gabe is a little off the deep end...meanwhile, thanks for the heads-up. What is it about this site that brings guys like this out of the woodwork? - Lucky 6.9 06:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Placing users in danger

Reading the discussion, in my less than admirable insobriety, I commented. The discussion is appalling. That the time of day is given to these morons is, itself, a legitimate ground for disparaging WP. It's obscene, IMHO, and I think I expressed that view fairly well in my strongly-worded review on its talk page. I just hope Jimbo doesn't feel I've characterized him as "too negligent" that he sees fit, God-forbid, to ban me for speaking my mind. I honestly think that this crap is preposterous, tho, and I think it besmirches his name that it exists on WP. :-\ Tomer TALK 06:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't have anything significant to add the the "discussion" that has not been said by someone else - but wanted to say that I thought you made a good and sensible call in banning that user. 62.252.0.6 20:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commotion in action at Fac page: *Need help* to stabilize anti-bias

Ok, I see you found the "you've got messages" link / joke -don't feel like I singled you out -I got several people with that one. (And may get a few more --psst! don't tell anyone.)

And now on to the important portion of my message:

OK, I could be wrong, but I think that the Schiavo article was fixed well by all of our teamwork, and since I recalled Neutrality once making a "featured article" suggestion about Schiavo's article in one peer review, I nominated it, as it my conscience told me it was the right thing to do. There is a flurry of "NO" bias -and while I think I shall minimize my editing participation, I've put the call out to many regular contributors whose work is insulted here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo Firesorm here; Need help. Your feedback would be welcome. Thank you for your time.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] why

my edit to the list of people who said they are a god is very justifiable, and has been discussed prevoiously, removing it is really kinda mean. whyd you do that?Gavin the Chosen 00:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin

I personally feel that Gavin warrants a bit of a block for disruption, so I thought it would be good to bring it to your attention. He did a bit of revert fighting just now here and here, and reinserted some bizarre content here and here. Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you what to do or anything, just giving my opinion. Hope that's OK. Friday (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Your personal emoptions are noted, and frankly, i think thats too much. all i EVER try to do is make improovements.Gavin the Chosen 00:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

#3: [8]. Summary says to give him a chance to cite his sources. He should cite them before making the edit, then, as I stated in my revert. ~~ N (t/c) 00:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My support

Well done. I would have done the same thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Crone

I was just creating a stub for her and I saw that two prior edits had been deleted. They might have been horrible but, they might have had good information but something wrong that led for the speedy deletion to go through. Could you paste contents on Talk:Patricia Crone? Thanks. gren ??? 07:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Image:Ak-74 right side.jpg
The safety is off. El_C

For suffering through so much racism and more trolls than I care to count, and persevering; trolls who seem primarily motivated in driving dedicated editors and having them replaced with more trolls, I hereby grant you this AK-74 image macro. Apply controlled bursts. Yours, El_C 08:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International links

I have a question. The subjects Psychedelic trance and Goa trance music (which is widely considered to be a sub-genre by modern day standards) both have a problem. They are starting to get a long list of external links pertaining to each country's specific parties/fora/festivals/stores, etc. What is the Wiki policy on this? If everyone starts adding their link because they want to be linked, then those two articles are going to be even more unencyclopedic than they already are. --Kim Nevelsteen 14:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind comments. It means a lot to be called something other than "obsessive" or "fixated" for trying to deal with fundamental issues of how to do things right in the project. I don't know how you manage sometimes - dealing with all the attacks, the "rogue admin" accusations, the RFAr...I'm not sure I would have kept with it through all that. I deeply admire people like you, Mel, Will, Steve , El C... Thanks for the message, and thanks for all your hard work. Guettarda 19:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Title edit

Hi, this might sound stupid, but how does one edit a wiki title?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineko_iwasaki

This is clearly wrong as the surname should be caps. Can I do this, or do you have to?

Cheers, John Smith's 21:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, John Smith's, no, it doesn't sound stupid, and you can do it yourself. Click on the article's "Move" tab button! Bishonen | talk 21:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tightrope Award

Tightrope Award
Tightrope Award

Thanks from me too! I don't know where you find the patience, Slim, or how you stay so calm (at least to outward appearance) and reasonable always. You are hereby presented with your own unique Tightrope Award, which represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Think of it as an early prototype of editors like you carrying Wikipedia on their shoulders! Bishonen | talk 21:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning LaRouche Polical Views

Would you kindly revert your changes on the following paragraph?

LaRouche has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in the 1978 article, and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment". Fair comment is a legal term used in defamation cases. It does not reflect the common language use of the words fair comment.

If you do not want to do so would you kindly explain your actions with arguments regarding the wikipedia policy?

thank you for your help and time...

--Zirkon 11:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm - I will revert your changes at 16:00 UTC unless you start a diskussion about this paragraph...

till then --Zirkon 13:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. If you want to change it again i suggest you explain why it is not appropraiate to keep it in its current form. I would like to know your point of view very much.

--Zirkon 16:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you are online now could share your views on the paragraph with me?

--Zirkon 20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just using the term as the obviously the Washington Post understood it. I am revering to this paragraph in this article:

In October 1980, a New York State Supreme Court justice dismissed a defamation suit the NCLC had filed against the Anti-Defamation League and ruled that calling the NCLC anti-Semitic is merely "fair comment" or a matter of opinion.

Is this original research?

(hm maybe i should have put that on article talk side - oh well bear with me)

--Zirkon 20:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I copied the above comments on to the article talk site - thank you for your patients and your kind reminder message on my talk site. --Zirkon 21:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP address

Could you please take a look at the latest goings on at IP address, SqueakBox 12:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyeon

Howdy. User:Eyeon may be back as User:Refugee621. See [9] (not a pretty picture). android79 01:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Simon

Slim, Ed,

I have been following the situation with Gabriel, editing now as Gavin the Chosen, for some time, although I have generally tried to keep my mouth shut about it lately--as far as I can tell, he has never listened to a single piece of advice I have tried to give him. By August 9, the two of you had agreed to take on a kind of mentor/monitor role with respect to Gabriel, giving him carrots and sticks as appropriate.

Let me say that I'm grateful to have veteran administrators here like the two of you; I've learned a lot from your behavior and writings as this episode has unfolded and hope to be able to use those lessons in my future work with the encyclopedia.

That said, however, I think it's time we should all consider whether this arrangement is working. I am going to suggest that it is not.

Gabriel has been blocked six times in less than three weeks. And all of them for the most fundamental things, in particular, violating the 3RR. He continues to make excuses, blame everyone else, and, frankly, shows no sign that I can see of wanting to become a better editor. He wants his changes to stick, sure, and he wants to avoid blocks, but he doesn't want to understand why editors are rejecting his changes and why he is getting in trouble. He is basically doing the same kinds of things today that he was doing months ago.

As I said, I am deeply impressed by the time and effort you have both put in to tutoring Gabriel. But how many last chances is he going to get? Slim, let me remind you of what you said back on August 9: "I've told him this is very much his last chance. He's been given a lot of slack, and I think he deserves a chance to create a new account and a fresh start, but if the old behavior returns, then I would say he's used up all his chances." There are many other editors, and many other readers besides Gabriel. They all deserve consideration as well. If, after all this time, Gabriel can't even learn to hew to the simple letter of 3RR, is there really any hope for his improvement?

At the minimum, I think it is time to say that the August 9 arrangement has failed. Six blocks have to equal one "last chance." I truly think that he should be blocked pending the outcome of his arbitration case--and, given his use of sockpuppets in the past, probably his IP should be blocked as well. If this is too harsh, I think the terms of his "mentorship" should at least be strengthened to include the following: (a) adherence to a one revert rule, (b) no editing at all to a small list of pages where he has gotten into trouble in the past and seems only to cause disruption and waste the time of other editors, and (c) minimum block duration of 72 hours, as the last six 24 or 48 hour blocks have not done the trick.

I am a very new editor at Wikipedia; I understand that I have a lot to learn about the best way to do things around here. I hope you will take the time to discuss with me if you think I am off base here, and I sincerely thank you for your time in reading this message.

Yours,

Craig --Craigkbryant 04:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

as i said before, ther mere fact that i am able to remain here despite things that happened is enough proof of a desire to improove. mr craig, woul you please refrain from passing judgement? Of all the users on this site, i have only passed judgement twice, tho i will not speak of that now. i regret that i was correct.

as i slso said before, i do make mistkes, and btw, "excuses" are my attempts at self explainatioin, an attempt to show where im coming from... seemed a reasonable idea to t ry and proobve im not just here to be a jerk.Gavin the Chosen 04:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diarrhea Article Image

While I understand your desire to have my image removed from the Diarrhea article, I believe the educational benefits of keeping the image outweigh the revulsion that some may feel. To be honest, I don't understand how it can be considered "obscene" once you take into account the fact that the Wikipedia articles on anus, penis, and clitoris lead to graphic images of their subjects. Also, considering that Wikipedia is attempting to be used as a viable reference, we should act like adults and not make "poop is gross!" arguements when discussing something that is, like it or not, a part of human life. Refugee621 06:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Would you accept a less-offensive image for the article? Perhaps an illustrated cross-section or something along those lines. However, if the entire concept of an image being posted in the article is taboo, I'll just leave it at that. Refugee621 08:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about original research

Sorry to bother you but... Could you please point me to the relevant paragraph in that original research article? I am trying to find one that is actually intended for this case, but i am certain it is a subtle thing that you can easily clarify...

Thank you for help

--Zirkon 11:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Nanjing Safety Zone

It's been a while so this might not be complete. Also, the article was written with facts aggregated from many different places, rather than one single source.

There is much more I could have added to the article, if not for FoC's constant agenda-pushing. Also, we should be asking for sources from FoC, not me, since it's he who is trying to squeeze his version of the story into the article. -Hmib 02:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I added some sources as well, with the aim of better establishing historiographical consensus. El_C 02:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, El C, they look very useful. I look forward to reading them. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Here to help! :) El_C 02:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Sorry

My apologies for this edit at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. It was careless of me. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it was bold. These things are bad when the issue is one of disagreement over meaning, but language errors don't matter, that's what the whole collaborative editing is for. Thanks for trying to improve WP:3RR. --fvw* 02:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Help

Hay, Slim Virgin, will you do me a favor and change my user name from User:Dbraceyrules to User:V. Molotov. I got this idea from a new user that had put barnstars on my sight. I really like that name alot. D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of whom...I get the most fun messages on my talk page, no? Ah, Wikipedia. - Lucky 6.9 22:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hope I didn't scare you

I know my words were radical on Lucky 6.9's talk page, but I was pissed off at the moment because I had a class canceled. Thanks, V. Molotov 00:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose those ultra-leftists wanting to execute some for possessing millions of dollars, just as you should oppose those ultra-rightists who wish to execute people who steal (or exporpriate) from the millionaires and billionaires. Comrade Nkrumah would agree, I'm sure. El_C 00:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
You terrifed me, VM. If that's what happens when you miss a class, what happens when you get really angry? ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, class, that's what I'm talking about! :) El_C 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The real problem, El C, is with all of the damn moderates!!! Damn them and their left-of-right, right-of-left nonsense! Func( t, c, @, ) 00:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Damn pacifists — when will they learn? Non violence dosen't work! El_C 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Good heavens, I did not mean to cause a political debate. I am sorry Image:WikiLove.png. I was pissed off at the moment, plus my car is in the shop and I have relatives around the area where Hurricane Katrina hit. I am sorry. Please don't shun me off Wikipedia. (and some of the things I said were true). V. Molotov (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Now that you are back on the computer, will you please not get scared because some wacko (me) talks about something crazy, but probably lives some thousands or at least miles from you :

V. Molotov


21:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus vs. supermajority

A consensus is not 66% nor 80%, nor 100%. You're confusing a supermajority with consensus. Consensus is a decision or resolution that all parties in a dispute or discussion can accept, even if they disagree. Please take care to note the difference. In day to day matters, such as VfD and RFA, a supermajority serves as a practical substitute for real consensus. However, such operational conveniences do not change the proper definition of consensus.

Jimbo's decision forced a consensus that was probably already developing, but had clearly not been reached at the time he announced his opinion. Regardless of its history, it's now a fact of Wikipedia life that virtually everyone accepts, and I don't intend to argue it further. Unfocused 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CfD on LGBT philosophers

Lulu, I still can't find Category:LGBT philosophers on the deletion page. The page link goes to the page but not specifically to an entry for that, and when I do a search, nothing comes up. Sorry if I'm just missing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize. I know I did this wrong, and created some Wikispace cruft. I was trying to follow the VfD procedures rather than CfD, and didn't even really know how to do the wrong thing either. I just got back home, and I'll try to follow the CfD procedures I finally located. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:38, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
...followup: I think I have done it correctly now. Could you let me know if there is still some formal error in the category deletion recommendation I made? Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:49, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Request denied. You don't get to decide when something gets unprotected just because you initially protected it. There were compelling reasons for unprotecting, and two people had requested it on the talk page. Moreover I regard this edit warring as very low-level and think it's ridiculous to protect an article on something current just because there's one or two reverts in a two day period. Finally I did not edit the page myself except to fix some typos. I have contributed no content to that article that I can recall. Everyking 03:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not hours. 3 days according to the history. And it's been almost a week since the unprotection before you noticed it. If you're not paying attention to it you can't insist that you be the gatekeeper. In any case this is all new to me, this idea that one admin has to get approval from another admin to act. You protected it. 3 days passed. Two requests for unprotection were made, coupled with a good reason (chart updates). Therefore I unprotected. Everyking 03:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)