User talk:SlimVirgin/archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] West Bank

I consider myself to be a (critical) supporter of Israel, and know plenty of people who are completely uncritical supporters of Israel. Neither I nor anyone I know calls the West Bank "Judea and Samaria." I don't think this term is ever used in English except as a translation of the Hebrew Yehuda ve'ha'Shomron. So I think my original formulation was correct. Adam 03:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no ha, actually, it's simply Yehuda ve'Shomron (יהודה ושומרון). Both the West Bank (הגדה המערבית) and Judea & Samaria are used interchangebly in modern Hebrew by official bodies and the main stream media. But the biblical term is more common (130,000 hits versus 11,400 for the West Bank on google.co.il). Doron would back me up on this. Sorry, what was the question again? El_C 04:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The question is whether Judea and Samaria are used, in English, outside Israel (putting aside that inside Israel the Hebrew terms are used). In my experience, yes; in Adam's experience, no. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Note the following excerpt by Benny Morris in the New York Times : "This stretch, with Jerusalem at its center, comprises the area that the Bible and many Israelis now refer to as Judea and Samaria, and the rest of the world calls the West Bank." [1]. HTH El_C 06:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. Good old Benny. ;-) I agree that most people call it the West Bank, but I still think a sizable number outside Israel call it Judea and Samaria. But is it a significant minority, or a tiny minority re: NPOV? I don't know how to judge. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I would'nt really know. Why do you think that, though? Based on what? El_C 06:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Why do I think they're used outside Israel? Only based on personal experience and books I've read, but I've no idea how significant the minority is. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
As you well know, your personal experience will not do. :) But I encourage you to cite those books and any other reputable published works; I think that could prove instructive for our purposes here. El_C 07:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I hope you're not suggesting that my personal experience would constitute original research? Harrumph ... But citing the books won't help, because it still won't tell us how small a minority it is — but it's not an issue I'm going to push anyway. I've deferred to Adam. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
No, not at all, never! There's an old Babylonian saying: the one with the assault rifle gets to decide what is or is not original reserach. El_C 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
That should probably go on the policy page. I don't suppose you've got a reference? You being the one without the gun and all. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I surrender, and will draw the appropriate lessons, quietly, inside my mind. As you were; at ease, soldier! El_C 08:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wittgenstein

Hi SlimVirgin. Thanks for your question, I answered on the talk page. I think if the cat is in existence it's better the article is in it, but really I'm ok with it either way. Cheers—Encephalon | ζ  04:45:24, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

[edit] no good faith

Regarding your message here: Can you no longer assume good faith because my post contained factual errors? Or is it simply because I am reporting a true account of events? Please let me know if there are any factual errors and I will correct them right away. As for your comment that all I do is "attack", I will remind you once again that I withdrew my certification of my own RFC so that it could be deleted. That was no small gesture on my part. a month later you say I'm editing something because of my RFC and try to tell me that no one "credible" supported it. In short, I withdrew, and a month later you attack. FuelWagon 05:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AVD

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon is busy at Talk:Canada which is, obviously, Canada related. (sigh) Homey 15:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] list of people who said they are gods

my point stands firm, becasue other s removed jesus and chuckey manson on the same grounds as i did, and yet, no one reverted them, or called THEM disruptive.Gavin the Chosen 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

why dont i see you reverting them, or blocking them for diruption? why didnt anyone revert them? or is this a cite of unfair treatemnt of myself?Gavin the Chosen 11:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, complain about how you are treated unfairly more. I think we should revert war over at the list also. This will go swimmingly for you. Hipocrite 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your e-mail

Hi SV, thanks for your email explaining the misunderstanding. I forgive you (*holy*) Please try and avoid squabbling with FuelWagon. It's not worth it. I know you said you can no longer assume good faith, but try to let it go. Start from scratch and be civil, if not pleasant. I'm going to tell FW the same thing. Spread the love instead. Proto t c 11:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Philosophers

I'm confused about some aspects of categories too. The policy, I know, is not to add a parent category when there's a relevant sub-category, and often I can see that — but it can lead to reduced usefulness, as you say. I suppose that one worry might be that Category:Philosophers would get too big and indiscriminate, and so lose its usefulness anyway. Have you estimated how many entries it would have if all those in sub-categories were in the parent catgory?

Would amalgamating some of the sub-categories be a solution, so that there aren't too many over-specific (and poorly-populated) sub-categories? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Errrmm

I almost hesitate to say anything, as I see you're already well aware of the situation. But, this is a bit ridiculous. There's now a big controversy over nothing, spurred on by Gavin's repeated reverts. I strongly feel this warrants a bit of a block for disruption. Friday (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The one with the assault rifle... ;) El_C 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome to borrow it, so long as I'm allowed to suggest a target. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Is it a secret target? El_C 16:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
A target of old who has chosen to raise his head again, sadly. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] me and my RFC

Look, if you have a problem with me and the fact that you will assume no good faith on my part, you take it up with me. If you see my actions somewhere on wikipedia through the lense of "no good faith", then obviously you will see nothing but me up to no good. You want to question that behaviour as long as you hold "no good faith", then you do it with me, on my talk page. Because it's me you have the problem with, not my edits. Whether the RFC against Bensaccout was "legitimate" or not is not something you can neutrally declare because you aren't neutral. And questioning the RFC's legitimacy has done nothing but insult all the editors who worked hard to resolve the problem with Bensaccount before we finally filed the RFC. If there were procedural problems with the RFC, an admin other than you will need to deal with it because you have a personal dispute with me that is clouding your vision. You're now deleting comments on your behaviour and labeling them as "personal attacks". If I can't talk about your behaviour as an editor, then there is no way to resolve any dispute. Deal with me and not my RFC or my edits or whatever. If you decide you wish to continue carrying your grudge against me, then you keep it to yourself, keep it off of my RFC, and keep it out of public pages. I will not stand for your continued insistence on mud slinging against me in public pages. You've now gummed up my attempt to delete Bensaccount's RFC as a way of trying to get him to come back to wikipedia. Until you are wiling to resolve this, I will expect you to maintain your distance regarding any admin actions you may take around that RFC (deleting it, undeleting it, or whatever) or any other page I may be working on. Your comments on the bensaccount RFC may as well be posted on my talk page instead, since they have nothing to do with the RFC and everything to do with your dispute with me. FuelWagon 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Rat.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. RBot 02:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Thuresson 05:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letting the hoi polloi in

I noticed that public opinion seems to have shifted a little towards the idea of expanding the elite ranks of the bureaucrats, and it struck me that I can't really think of a better choice than you. Of course, by doing your job well you have made a lot of enemies, so it would never be a smooth ride, but I think it's something you might consider giving a thought to. Guettarda 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pipes and TOCs

I did unprotect it before removing the template; the protection notice was added due to vandalism and not a content dispute, and it had been there for five days, so I figured it should be unprotected anyway.

I have indeed been browsing the articles which use {{TOCright}} and removing it from the ones which do not fit the guidelines. It is intended for lists, disambig pages, or pages with extremely long TOCs that get in the way, and not for regular articles such as this one, since it tampers with Wikipedia's standard appearance. The guidelines are stated at Template talk:TOCright and Wikipedia:Section. — Dan | Talk 23:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop supporting Holocaust deniers

I'm sick of you tolerating trash like Flowerofchivalry yet banned me for two days.

[edit] Hi

Thanks for the nice note. Good to be back!

Love the Borges quote above... BrandonYusufToropov 10:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hey

Hey slimvirgin, I have been watching your numerous contributions to the animal liberation category, something that i too feel strongly about. I'd just like to say thanks for all of your hard work and commitment in making the area more navigationable! Tekana | Talk 17:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Youre welcome. keep up the great work and good luck. If theres any articles that needs improving or you need any help of any kind, give us a ring and ill be happy to help :) Tekana | Talk 17:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support!

Dear SlimVirgin, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA, and for your kind comment. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Comments

A few more thoughts follow.

[edit] Single-article ownership claim

For an example of what I think was a valid Request for Corrective Action concerning serious abuses involving ownership of one article, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell. As you will see, the subject stated that his church was "in charge" of the article about its founder. He had engaged in a revert over the an NPOV banner. He had also made an apparent threat to use the courts and television to see to it that the truth (his Right Version) was shown. There had already been an article RfC. Please review it, and see whether you agree that there can be a conduct RfCA about one article. Robert McClenon 09:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bensaccount, Certifying, Decertifying

I agree that I did not certify it in the 48 hours. It is common for an unquestionably valid RfCA to gain certifying signatures after the first two. One issue that needs to be addressed is whether there is any validity to the idea of voluntarily cancelling a certifying signature. I think that the answer should be no. I once offered to cancel my signature to an RfC, and this was taken as a sign of weakness, and then a sock army started marching after me. I think that once an RfC/RfCA is certified, it should never be decertified except for improper certification. The rule should be: "Do not certify it until you are willing to go to arbitration, and are willing to have a permanent archived record."

I may not have certified the RfC in a timely manner, but the other certifiers did, and their decertifications were an honest error that should be reversed. Robert McClenon 09:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad-faith RfC

If you want to see an obvious example of a bad-faith RfCA, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Robert McClenon. I would appreciate your comments. I think that the RfCA was properly certified, because what is a valid RfCA should be interpreted to allow a questionable RfCA. That is, if the sock army who signed this RfCA wants to go to the ArbCom, I have confidence that the ArbCom will recognize a sock army. If you think that it was improperly certified, then my question is: Who should judge? I would rather let the ArbCom judge after the RfAr is filed than let 500 admins judge before then. Robert McClenon 09:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

justa thought, but if your the focus of the rfc, then it might be more likly to look bad faith to you at least... seemed like bad faith till i rea read my RFA, if that helps.Gavin the Chosen 09:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what point Gavin the Chosen is trying to make. Robert McClenon 15:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mbahrami

Hikmah is appears to copy the beginning of this book. Modern Islamic philosophy was a repeated copyvio from www.muslimphilosophy.com site. He kept on adding "Iranian scientists" category to that page as well. Many of his other edits seem questionable. He does not discuss edits, he blanks his talk page, and all in all I have to be like a baby sitter reading his entries to make sure he didn't do something stupid. Any help would be appreciated. gren グレン 11:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Transcendent Theosophy has all of the markings of a copy vio. On Suhrawardi (this dif) he added material from here. Image:Islamic art.jpg has no source... and his past actions don't put him above massive copyright violation and he doesn't discuss it. Very frustrating editor, I mean, the sources are good, but... there is law for a reason.... at least cite the stuff. gren グレン 11:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Braun

I saw you'd encountered the mess of an article, Bruce Friedrich, authored primarily by an unregistered editor who is undoubtedly Nathan Braun. I first encountered Braun when he was complaining (justifiably) about some defamatory material that was being spread about him. Now I realize the bigger problem is Braun himself, as he has made repeated efforts to promote himself and his causes (various forms of Christian vegetarianism) in ways that do not always benefit Wikipedia. Anyway, He's not the worst POV pusher, and there are worse POVs, but I just thought I'd give you a heads-up in case you run across his contributions again. Cheers, -Willmcw 15:14, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

PS Nice work cleaning up Center for Consumer Freedom. -Willmcw 16:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please review

If you can, can you check This out and tell me what you think. I did it all my self, but still don't like it. It's ugly and does not seem to read well. Striver and Brandon have helped out too. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucratship

Hi, SlimVirgin. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False 3RR block on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters_

Basically, could you look at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters? An admin with a bit of a grudge against me has blocked me on a non-existent 3RR (because I reported a 3RR on an anon editor). Thanks, Lulu...

[edit] Don

Hi!, you posted a message about one Don on my page. Problem is I can't recall me posting any such comment. Could you point me to the exact page? Thanks. (PS I won't me monitoring your talk, so plz post on my talk. Tx ) User:Nichalp/sg 06:30, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When you get the chance ...

... can you give me your take on this? BrandonYusufToropov 10:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, the reason I'm reverting is that we don't allow what we call drive-by tagging

Hi, There is no entry in Wikipedia listed under drive-by tagging. The relevant POV comments have already been made by others on the talk page ad nauseum . As far as I'm aware I have contravened no binding editorial policy. I resent your condescending use of the first person plural ("we don't allow"). Also, take a look at your own history and bear in mind that those who dwell in glass houses ought not throw stones. Cheers, 60.240.142.101 (talk · contribs)

[edit] Follow-up on bad-faith RfC

Thank you to SlimVirgin for looking at the bad-faith RfC and agreeing that anonymous IP editors should not certify an RfC. I don't know whether the other two certifiers with no previous posting history are sockpuppets or meatpuppets (real humans brought in as voices), but the ArbCom generally does not care. I do not want to have the RfC deleted. I would like to know if it could be archived as evidence of bad conduct by the certifiers and endorsers. I have initiated Requests for Corrective Action against both Agiantman and the anonymous editor, and an RfAr, which is now in backlog, against the anonymous editor, and I would like RfC process misconduct to be one of the issues. The RfC against me was revenge for filing the two previous RfCs.

By the way, of the two late certifying signatures from real users, one of them is (in my opinion) a flame-troll, who is also the subject of an RfC, and the other one simply has what I consider a well-meaning but strange and superior attitude toward a controversy. She thinks that everyone engaged in the controversy, other than herself, was equally out of line, and so everyone involved should be censured. Oh well. Robert McClenon 15:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin ban

So it's all over, at least for a month. For safety purposes, you should probably consider blocking Ketrovin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Khulhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Oh, and thanks for supporting my RfA! ~~ N (t/c) 16:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jtdirl

Do you know the details of why Jtdirl has left? Was he being stalked by sock-puppets of a banned user? You said that you and other admins can block sock-puppets. Have the sock-puppets in question been blocked yet? Robert McClenon 18:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\talk 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famekeeper and Sock-Puppets

I am not being stalked by sock-puppets at this time. I do not know whether I have evidence that Famekeeper is stalking me. He is not a sock-puppet. I think that he is, but I do not have proof. At this point, he is hardly the sort of threat to public order that warrants an administrative block. I thank you for posting the admonition to him on his talk page. (The edit that you diffed was actually not his personal attack, but my deletion of personal attacks, which I moved to a user talk subpage of deleted personal attacks. As such, you noticed that I was deleting a series of personal attacks over time.) I think that eventually it will be necessary to take him to the ArbCom, and to ask them to ban him from editing any article pages or article talk pages having to do with the Catholic Church. He basically has a conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church was guilty of knowingly allowing the Holocaust to happen by connivance in the rise to power of the Nazi Party. He also maintains that the Catholic Church is acting as a conspiracy to infiltrate Wikipedia and suppress the truth, and has accused one editor of being an "agent of the Vatican". What he mostly does is to flood article talk pages with rant, because he knows that if he puts POV material on article pages that is not stated as POV, it will be reverted, which he considered blocking or censorship. I see no need to take administrative action against him at this time. If he wants to fight, I am ready to fight him at the ArbCom. I don't think he wants that, but I think that is what will happen. He is basically a troll. He also claims that he thinks that I am not Robert McClenon. Who does he think that I am? That should be unmistakably a true name. He also claims to be a native speaker of English, but his written English is often of very bad quality. I have no idea what he will now accuse you of. Robert McClenon 19:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There is another group of sock-puppets who have an issue with me. You have seen them on the bad-faith RfC. You probably have very little interest in the RfCs that I filed against them, if, as I assume, you are in the United Kingdom. The original issue was the content of an article on a US politician, but then there were 3RR violations, and gaming of the system via sock-puppets, and personal attacks. At this point, I can hold my own against them. I do have an RfAr against the anonymous editors. It is low on the ArbCom's list of priorities, partly because the article in question was page-protected for too long due to their revert wars, so that they were not able to continue to misbehave. Robert McClenon 19:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I assume that banned user Skyring is having his ban extended every time his sock-puppets engage in misconduct. Robert McClenon 19:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're gonna love this...

I was poking around images and I found a user that uploaded a massive stream of images without source. I didn't think much of it, but I started examining some PDFs that he uploaded as well that had a source, but no license. Now, this is what I speculate. The user created his account, created an article specific to what his company does with all the needed graphics and technical explaination and added a link to his company at the bottom of the article. He/she then added links from other articles to "his companies article" and then buggered off after Sept 4th. See contribs of FritzSolms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for the article of URDAD which stands for Use-Case Responsibility Driven Analysis and Design. Which if you Google either the acronym or the entire title doesn't give much. His user page has a link to what I believe to be his company and is the same link at the bottom of the URDAD article. Oh, and one more thing. The first line of the article is, "originating from Solms TCD", the company name that is linked on the user page. Bingo! Article Solms TCD, Listed CEO -> Fritz Solms --None-of-the-Above 21:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed all the advertising links on the articles. I you find this to be proper conduct, I will revert. --None-of-the-Above 22:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi, FritzSolms is my business colleague. He is vertainly not a 'vandal' as marked here, though I do agree some of his postings had too much of an advertising tone to them, many of which I have corrected. URDAD and related material are valid processes which are being used by several companies in South Africa, though there aren't many online sources to cite. We are also fairly new to wikipedia, so if the tone is not encyclopedic enough, we do apologise - and will correct. But removing things like links from the proper company box is certainly improper. I was not aware of the no original research policy, though now that I think about it, it does make a lot of sense. I think the articles do need to be amended to cite valid sources.--User:Dawidl 08:45, 5 September 2005 (SAST)
I posted a link on your user page about no original research. If you find URDAD to be a subject that is wide spread enough for Wikipedia, then I would request that you add the needed sources that can be verified by other editors. If the technique is in wide spread use, what source proclaims that Solm TCD is the original inventor of the technique? --None-of-the-Above 06:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I have one more question as well. If Solms TCD is allowed to create a company page for themselves. Where do you draw the line? I know I will be happy to create a company page for my own company and it's research which also has published techniques. --None-of-the-Above 06:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts - sources do need to be cited for URDAD, though I fail to see your argument about the company page. I am certain that most companies do, to some degree, maintain their own company pages. How does one cite sources for a company? What is WikiPedia's policy on company pages in general? --User:Dawidl 09:10, 5 September 2005 (SAST)
Sorry to interject again, but this is a list of pages that URDAD has been "advertised" on without source. Software development process, Design process, Single responsibility principle, Modified Delphi method, Object-oriented analysis and design, Systems design, Abstraction (computer science) and a whole bunch of images. --None-of-the-Above 07:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famekeeper

I only begin to understand what socks are. I answer your civil message , though I have quite evidently come to my second conclusion for non-intervention upon this organ . In answer to your reasonable tone , I can only say that since I have irrefutably posted the truth of my reports concerning the two users I categorise, I can only refer you again to firstly McClenon's Rfc dicussion page, and secondly to the entire history between myself and Str1977.

I was simply reporting my answer to McClenon , who claimed that irrefutable evidence of bad faith is a necessary precondition of such categorisation . Str1977 you will note had me reaching for the arbitration word at the beginning of every talk page of each article he slashed. He is really extremely keen on slashing and reason has never proved acceptable despite his manner .

The subject at dispute is very complex and very real, and their shared reference to this as somehow a personal conspiracy theory by myself is simply ad hominem . I fear I cannot ask you or any reasonable user to somehow understand the subtle differnces between reasonable and unreasonable editing in the matter . McC at any rate is so extremely un-trustworthy as to wrongly and erroneously qualify his edits . He at least three times has retreated when caught , into the mantra of mistake (blamed on me even when I am miles away) . Str however is wily and less obvious . He has been refusing to recognise the very source historians who are so prominently categorised on WP as accepted historians for the relevant history . This has been the entire history of relations with Str . I am driven quite ragged by his length at denial , which is why you will find my presence in discussions to be so very long . I am not a proponent of catty reverts , and continued over very many months to try reason . I can point you to at least three places where Str in the end climbs down , as his version of calling things a mistake is to deny what he himself used as counter argument many sections prior. This becomes intensely frustrating , and when I called for comment McC entered , and immediately marshalled his idea of good faith into further demands that I repeat all manner of sourced arguments -all of which had been argued at great deatiled length upon the relevant pages, and the same pages he then ebntered .. My reluctance to be constrained to repeat such intensity and my already maximised frustration with the behaviour of Str , brought thru my categorisation of the latter as a whitewasher for the church, into my own Rfc . Which by the way I think is unfounded , if alone because Str claims he tried to mediate or whatever. This is irksome to say the least as Str is entirely the cause for all this intense frustration (of source) . McC though is irrefutably an aggressive mediator who lied to me at the start and then increased his belittling and attacking manner to the point I analysed on his Rfc talk prior to signing . I gave him every oppportunity to categorise it himself , which he did not care to supply , I then signed that rfc with that irrefutable proof of his dishonesty and bullying .

I actually have decided this is all a waste of my time . I have succeeded in broadening the coverage now , and the linkages , to the history which even now McC calls somehow my personal madness, so I am relatively satisfied to watch , and get on with my other digital life . I have throughout leveled myself towards some sort of morality in this , and I would not be ashamed to drag Str before arbitration . However I honestly say that , impoe=rtant as this history is, I would regret having to bring anyone the necessity to view Str's and my painful intellectual duel . I have now won the duel content wise , and it has been at great cost to me . I am vilfied for my sources quite wrongly because , as is apparent from McC here above, the history is deemed mad . It is , Slim Virgin, far from mad. It is true . All I have done is add the various sources together and link between the articles . You will have read the reactions on my own Rfc. so you will understand slightly that McC is still using an ad hominem against me on this history . This is of course shameful behaviour .

What exactly would you expect a user to do in this circumstance where it seems that the aim is to remove reather than include source ? I have sourced all I refer to , to Str , at least twice for everything . I object to having to repeat ad infinitum , when they are recorded, despite the apparent enjoyment that drivelling on is supposed to give me . I'll end by adding to you directly the protest I have had to make , since at least Xmas , that the wikipedia is under attack from pro-catholic whtewashing or censorship . I have broken it as best I could , and the facts are staring through . If it has lost me potential good faith relations with most of the rest of the users , well they didnt have the job I had to do : it's a dirty job , but somebody has got to do it .Thannkyou and goodbye til whenever . Famekeeper 23:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop this guy

This user, User:TJive Special:Contributions/TJive keeps reverting all my edits because I tried to address the opposing views which does not agree with his. He reverted more than three times already, and also refused to respond to my pleas.

[edit] Image:Human feces.jpg

To let you know, the image is on the Wikimedia Commons, so it wasn't exactly deleted. While I thank you for getting rid of the image, we might have to go to higher places to get it gone from our servers. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, you've been reported for disruption...

"Hi, you've been reported for disruption at this article for deleting material and using misleading edit summaries. If you object to anything in the article, please discuss it at Talk:Open gaming with the other editors on the page, and try to reach a compromise."

On the one hand, what I have posted to Wikipedia, both in the articles themselves and the edit summaries, is factually accurate. I have not deleted anything factual nor have I posted any misleading summaries. If you had bothered to read the article and review its history, you would have seen that this is so.

On the other hand, I tried reaching a compromise with the net loon who keeps vandalising the article referenced above, up to and including following the entire Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure from beginning to end, spending months of my time in the process. The net loon refused to discuss anything (and, in fact, actively and aggressively sabotaged the dispute resolution process), the dispute resolution went nowhere and accomplished nothing, the Wikipedia staff couldn't even be bothered to read the article in question much less make an informed judgement, and I won't waste another moment of my time on any of it. My edits and edit summaries are and will continue to be factual, and I will not waste my time discussing them with an obsessed net loon who has an axe to grind, nor will I again throw away months of my life dealing with your insultingly futile dispute resolution process. Clean your own house, follow your own procedures, censor the net loons without requiring months of pointless and ineffectual bureaucracy, and then I will consider discussing future edits. Until then, it would be a waste of my time.

However, if my contributing facts and removing POV is counter to Wikipedia policy, then by all means censor me instead of the net loon. Frankly, I would not be surprised. -- 68.10.113.7 17:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] advert question.

The user Chmouel who has attributed many great photos signs all his photos with... "More picture of my travel to ... can be found ..." and the link to his personal site. I find this to be advertising in the 1st degree, but then again maybe you will be more lenient. Two examples are Image:Palenque Ruins.jpg & Image:Ireland-High-Cross.jpg. I wait your wisdom. ;) --None-of-the-Above 18:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open gaming and 68.10.113.7

Hi SV,

Anon IP 68.10.113.7 has once again reverted and deleted content[2] from Open gaming without discussing it on the talk page first[3] despite several attempts and warnings now from you and myself. Is there anything that can be done? Axon (talk|contribs) 10:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back to our Edit War

Virgin, it looks like Mel is back, which means the edit war will probably resume (after about 5 days of peace. Is there a way to end this peacefully? Mel is acting clueless in many situations and making the article look like hot messes. I've provided documentation about the usage of # and the remix notation, but Mel seems to be doing whatever he pleases. (Not to mention that the MoS allowed numbers to be spelled out) OmegaWikipedia 20:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you (plus a present)

Image:Resilient-silver.png
Thank you for your help with admin defense! (KC)

Thank you for defending my name in the recent spat of User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's 3RR block. I appreciate the time and effort that you spent discussing items with that user, and the calm demeanor that you (virtually...) expressed. So, here's the Resilient Barnstar for you! Thanks a lot, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judea and Samaria

I'm sorry if I somehow came off as agressive; I certainly didn't mean to be. Truth be told, I was a little off-put by a lack of full engagement in discussion over the last 2 weeks. If my words were a little stronger than usual, it was because I wanted to engage you in a sustained conversation rather than a "statement, reply, reply, full stop" as had happened twice already. Believe me, I only use italics as a last resort! :) I just felt I wasn't hearing your side fully, which I do always want to hear. So thanks for listening, and thanks for spreading the WikiLove!--Pharos 02:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal blocked

I've blocked the IP-addressed vandal who has been defacing this talk page, and I've put it on my watchlist. -- The Anome 10:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nay Problem

Some freaks really do carry a grudge --Irishpunktom\talk 19:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Being a controversial editor?

I am disconcerted (but not surprised) to witness the amount of animosity that my RfA has triggered in some editors. Is being a "controversial" editor, (i.e. one that edits controversial articles or that does not give up in asserting the need for accuracy and NPOV) a bad thing in your opinion? How does one deals with such animosity? Should I withdraw my candidacy? I would sincerely appreciate your comments on this. --ZappaZ Image:Yin yang.png 19:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)



Re: Wiki-ng photo:
Nice superscription! Hope it does the trick (especially when looking at its editing history ...)!
(~ Someone also browbeaten, but not quite ...~ 09:05 9 Sep 2005.)
P.S.: Had you seen this verdict [4]? How disappointing for all the contributors, administrators and above that are responsible for those articles that accurately and adequately impart knowledge worth knowing!

[edit] Re: Thank you

Not at all. What a weird vandal. Mattley 20:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I will side with Mattley. Same here. No problem at all. --None-of-the-Above 06:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OiHA sealed and deletionist

OiHA has a new look, and it's looking at YOU! This is not an invitation to join!! Yours always, El_C 12:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smilies

Happily, the TFD was unsuccessful, so the poor defenseless smilies weren't deleted :-) (smiley). Tomer TALK 06:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

They're still all in User:TShilo12/Smilies :P (smiley)... Tomer TALK 06:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radman1

I replied to your question on WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I gave you the link. I don't know what more you want. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:2004-12-29T22:45Z

This user is an obvious sock or reincarnation -- of who, I can't say. I see you restored one user page deletion here; maybe you'd like to restore again.

Or perhaps much stronger measures are called for. This user appears to a danger of a type I'm unfamiliar with. Much very odd, and looking hot for adminship -- a disaster if you ask me. RfC? — Xiong熊talk* 06:57, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

[edit] Open gaming (2)

Apologies if you have actually done this, but could I ask why 68.10.113.7 was not blocked, even though he continued to delete content from the open gaming article without discussion? I appreciate if you feel that this situation did not warrant blocking, but as my continued attempts to communicate with said user are ignored, i'm not really sure what I can do about this situation. Please advise. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi SV, I appreciate that he doesn't edit very often, but I would note that his tactic would seem to revert/delete edits to the open gaming article every month or so, sometimes using other IP addresses, in the hope they go unnoticed. It does not look like he is planning to cease doing this anytime soon. Whilst I have re-added his talk with calls for him to discuss his changes. It's increasingly disruptive and frustrating for me to do this. If he cannot be blocked for disruption perhaps something else could be done? TIA... Axon (talk|contribs) 12:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 103

I recently checked the Pan Am Flight 103 article and saw the "very long" template.

Where have you been? I'm very concerned about the page becoming very long. I think we better start reducing the article size. I have left a message for you on this. See Talk:Pan Am Flight 103. -- SNIyer12(talk) 15:51, Sept 12 2005 (UTC)

I edit this so it wouldn't show up in the "very long" category.

[edit] User:2004-12-29T22:45Z

Hi Cesar, I saw you'd deleted the above user page again, which I recently restored. Can you say what your reason was for deleting the page even though the user account is in use? I'm a little suspicious of the account because of previous allegations of sockpuppetry, as well as some strange editing, and if the user is requesting deletion of the user page, yet continues to edit, my suspicions increase. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

When I deleted that page, the only edit was vandalism by Xiong (talk · contribs) (as the delete log should show). --cesarb 18:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you so much for your very kind words in support of my nomination. I am humbled by your faith and am looking forward to wielding the mop and bucket. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:07, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Sarah, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I got your message in my talk page about my RfA: I have just one question: Since you say that I should not disrupt the formatting, I would like to know how I should reply or respond -should I so chose. (I am certainly expected to be able to respond and correct mis-statements, and give my side of the story.) -- Is it a simple matter of posting way at the bottom of the page? If that is so, then how would the original poster see my reply and connect it to his or her post? I am not trying to violate disruption; I merely do not know the proper methods; Now, regarding withdrawal, thank you for your opinion and for your allowing me discretion, but I would cheat the other users who support me, all those who have given me barn stars, for example, and others might support me; (You know firsthand how qualified help can be vilified and villainized improperly, lol) After they weigh in, then the matter will be determined; The worst that can happen is I fail -assuming I don't use "non-standard" disruption and more -after all: This is just an unpaid "wiki" job. Now, what is the right way to do the formatting? I'll be glad to comply, just only I seek to know the proper methods and policy. Thanks!--GordonWattsDotCom 17:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Magdoff

Sorry to bother. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome. --Cberlet 22:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zephram Stark

Hi. There is an email on the WikiEN-l mailing list from someone named Zephram Stark who has made certain accusations about your conduct. I thought you'd like to know. The archived copy of that message is here. - Mark 03:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Favour

Hi Slimvirgin, Please delete my user page and history. I have better things to do with my time. thanks a lot. David D. (Talk) 08:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question on [this]

Hey there --

It's been a while since anyone voted here. What's the procedure for winding it down? (I should know, but I don't...) BrandonYusufToropov 14:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for all your help while I was on vacation. Can you please unprotect you know what. Thanks once again. a-n-o-n-y-m 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OiHA's highest (and only, and first) Award!

Image:Seal-o-approval.jpg
Congratulations! El_C 01:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

After lengthy deliberation with our (you know, loosely!) beloved President and Founder, I am pleased to award you, Neglectarnia, with the OiHA Seal of Approval, out higherst award for all your ... and special way! p.s. this *still* isn't an invitation to join!! Yours always, El_C 01:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your outright contempt for OiHA has been noted, and will probably be used against you when you least expect! El_C 19:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Nick Davies

My only complaint is that if I click on a link of a person's name, I expect to get a page about that person, not someone else. My initial reaction was that it was the same person, who had two names. I have no objection to your putting a link in the one page to point to the other, but a redirect is inappropriate. Akihabara 02:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HK

Was I too hasty to block user:Herschelkrustofsky (1 week) and user:64.30.208.48 (indefinite)? I believe that I followed the terms of the ArbCom decision. The edit (under the IP) was eggregious POV. A second opinion would be welcome. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mess'ge rec'd

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts&diff=prev&oldid=23273463

  • Current revision
  • GordonWatts (Talk | contribs)
  • re Keight + SlimVirgin - see my note on my decision to not post until we hear from the bureaucrat -

I replied to you there, and I think I'm going to get a good night's sleep for now and "not post until we hear from the bureaucrat," as I imply above; but, closing early was premature and sets bad precedent and deprived many of my supporters, whom I hear are on vacation (two of them at least) the chance to weigh in.

I replied in better detail above at that perma-link diff.

--GordonWatts 08:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I got your post on my talk page, but our messages crossed paths; since I already responded in the RfA and here, I'll delete your message on my talk page; Take care.--GordonWatts 08:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Closing

Because of Mr Watts, I got involved with the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#A_more_obvious_closing and created the template below so that it might make it more apparant that voting is closed. See what you think... --Terry T | @ | C 11:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:RfA closed

This Request for Adminship nomination ended and has been archived.
Further voting or comments are no longer needed and may be reverted.

[edit] GordonWatts's RFA

Thanks, I would have done the same thing in your position. However, he's asked me to reopen it, stating that he doesn't mind the "ill will"; the policy of premature removal is intended to save the nominee from undue stress, so if he doesn't mind, I'm willing to let it run its course, though I doubt it will have much more success. I'll mention it at the RFA talk page as well. — Dan | Talk 15:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing meddling in bureaucrat business? This is not your affair.
If some uses find this page toxic, then they do not have to participate: It is voluntary. It is not like an article, which is up for the public viewing. (If they find it toxic, it is due to their own evil thoughts, which aren't going to be cured by closing this page.) Please note the new closing date, which was adjusted because of meddling earlier.
What harm would be down in letting my RfA run its course for the week? (You are creating a disturbance; Let it alone.)--GordonWatts 12:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Anittas

I'm failing utterly to get through to Anittas (talk · contribs), who has simply started throwing infantile insults (e.g., [5]). If you think that you might stand a better chance with him (it must be a him, and probably about fifteen), I'd be grateful. In any case I'm bailing out — I'm only making things worse. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought that I could walk away, but his latest revert of my editing ([6]) makes it impossible. I think that a word from outside might do something. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did you at least look?

Having given Jayjg a revert assist, can you at least tell me that you looked at my article, which I am copying here for your convenience, before you described it as my "own personal version" of the Occupation of the Palestinian territories article? (I'm sorry that this will not be tidy, but your buddy vandalized the page it was on.) Marsden 21:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, SlimVirgin, there are probably better ways to make an introduction than to revert someone -- helping someone else get around the three revert rule, no less -- and to accuse him of making his own personal version of an existing article. Marsden 22:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nandesuka's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. Your comments, in particular, meant a lot. I'll work hard to try to live up to the confidence you're showing in me. Nandesuka 01:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber's sockpuppets

Would you please place any accounts or ip which you believe to be Yuber's sockpuppets on the evidence page of his arbitration case. Fred Bauder 17:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Night (book)

  1. I have made a free map showing the location of Sighet: Image:LocationSighet.png; so Image:Sighetmap2.gif should be put up for deletion (as it is a {{permission}}-based image).
  2. Image:Wieseldeathmarch.gif – you've not given the reason why it is being used here as "fair use". See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale and Wikipedia:fair use. Have you tried asking them for a free licence?
  3. Just curious: Zoe keeps calling you by the name Valentina. Is that your name?

User:Nichalp/sg 19:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This page says that they want to make the information freely available to public. I think you should ask them if the map is PD. (If no, ask if they are willing to allow cc-by-sa-2.5 or cc-by-2.5 licences. Image:Wieseldeathmarch.gif should be linked to the page which contains the original image. Also please do not upload .gif files, convert them to .png. User:Nichalp/sg 07:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible protection?

Slim, any chance you could protect Vision of Love again? OmegaWikipedia 21:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you need "conspiracy theory" exactly?

Slim, I read your claimed rationale in favor of "conspiracy theory" but it seems like you can accomplish the same goal while also avoiding non neutral language. Can you please respond specifically to why you need exactly "conspiracy theory"? You haven't ever commented on the danger of "conspiracy theory" making it too easy to bury the truth. I still consider it ridiculous that you brought up the conspiracy "genre" while we were trying to determine the neutrality and appropriateness of words and phrases in a presentation context. If a specific allegation is cited and otherwise acceptable content then a "genre" is not applicable in determining the neutrality of presentation, in fact, the mere mention of that genre is pretty much proof the phrase is not neutral. zen master T 02:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request block of user who has broken 3rr several times in last 2 hours

Hey, SV.

82.134.103.100 (talk · contribs) has violated the 3rr several times on the Islam article. See edit history: [7]. Please block. He/she has been warned already by El_C and several other users. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the barnstar

Hello, Slim, thanks for the barnstar, and for noticing that I had reached my 1,000th edit. Hoping to start creating new (small) articles soon, certainly before the end of next month. Ann Heneghan (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmi

I've blocked him for another 24 hours. I'll leave a message on his talk page. Nandesuka 14:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on List of people who have said that they are gods

Could you comment on this RfC? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection of RfA:GordonWatts

Just wondering why you unprotected the page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re your recent post

Thank you for your concern: [8] I won't harm myself with a miscellanious post, but those who posted (and follow the details) will be harmed if I am not allowed a proper rebuttal.

I suggest you lock the page -with a better lock this time -if that is a concern.

However, this problem is the result of my RfA closing early; That is why I hold you partly responsible for not (a) voting for me (sincle I do meet the current, if low, guidelines), and (b) not interferring;

if you lock the page and hold off other posters (Admins who can post through your lock), then I will not have a reason to reply.

See, I told you that the RfA should have proceeded. But no one listens to me until after it's too late. Hmm...--GordonWatts 23:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuber

In addition to unblocking his account I have also requested that he use only his own account to edit. Please notify me if you feel he is using any other. Fred Bauder 21:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Please send the email to one of the arbitrators and they can forward it to the arbcom list. Generally the committee won't use use this kind of evidence, but I consider it relevant. Fred Bauder 21:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC reform

SV,
My heavy-handed attempt to change the direction of discussion didn't go well, did it? ^_^;
I'm in concordance with you regarding the current state of requests for comment. I've looked over my experiance with it again, and there's a clear dichotomy between what I expected (calm rational discussion wiht positive outcomes) and what I got (lots of nasty comments all around with no real progress in any direction). I tried then to re-form debate into something useful, to no avail. Thus the "approach with caution", "be very afraid", etc. warnings are essentially correct. (As an aside, I note that I had nice things to say about you!)
FW surely does rabbit on endlessly, but in some respects he has a point about a function seperate from RfArb. I think that there needs to exist a forum for issues about user conduct to be aired in a constructive manner. I'd like RfC to be that forum. Are you interested in trying to "spruce up" the existing system? (It will probably be a total pain in the bum with no thanks being handed out, of course.)
brenneman(t)(c) 05:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

An "issue" RfC, eh? That's not a bad start. To refer to my unfortunate example again, by framing it as "here are some closures that I'd like discussed" as opposed to "here's some things Tony has done I'd like discussed", things may have gone differently?
I'm going to divert some of the energy I've been spending on deletion guidelines into the dispute resolution process over the next couple of weeks. I feel that the only part of the entire process that's even close to working is ArbCom, and it's pretty late by then! Thus I'd like to hear your thoughts on WP:WQA and WP:RfM as well.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 16,000

16,000 Pennsylvania Avenue
16,000 Pennsylvania Avenue

Slim, congratulations on achiving 16,000 edits! :) I hereby award you this image of the White House, which, as everyone knows, is located at 16,000 Pennsylvania Avenue. ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 06:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I know better. It is at 1600. That is a distinction without a difference. Robert McClenon 11:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Heneghan

No problem...there's nothing I hate more than someone who's abusing other editors. And I'm pretty sure that nobody's really going to use an open proxy in Thailand for good edits.  :) Ral315 13:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:No original research

Hi, you reverted my cleanup on Wikipedia:No original research, could you please explain what you found wrong with my edit? Ponder 17:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Veganism...

I'm sorry, but I don't see why you removed the following paragraph from the veganism article:

The most prominant opposition to veganism on ethical grounds states the long human history of consuming animal products; many believe that certain body types have evolved consuming meat and dairy, and thus absorb certain nutrients best via these sources. The requirement for B-12, a vitamin humans can only derive from meat or dairy, is seen as evidence of this. Thus, the use of animals for certain purposes in a balanced diet is "only natural", a notion hotly contested by many vegans and vegetarians.

This is a very, very common point raised by non-vegans when being critical of veganism. - Plastic Editor

[edit] My 2¢ on veganism

I saw this post, and would like to weigh in:
First, the problem with vitamin B-12 deficiencies is due to the fact that we over-work the soil, instead of giving it time to rest. Both humans and land need time to rebuild, and this principle (letting the land rest once every seven years and then some) was once mentioned in the Bible, but that is informational (not preaching down your throat) information. If we let the land rest up well, then the fruits and veggies would have sufficient B-12 when grown on that land.
That being said, The four traditional reasons to become vegan are:
  1. More efficient (saves money, since calories aren't wasted in making un-edible things like bone and gristle)
  2. More humane (to our animal brothers)
  3. Tastes better (subjective opinion, but I buy it!)
  4. Healthier (Objective fact. Period.)
For more information, you might see my research on the subject:
--GordonWatts 13:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting

Well thank you very much, SlimVirgin! That's very kind of you! You've inspired me to go out and do some more this very moment! Regards, Babajobu 09:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude RfC

My sympathies for having to look at that RfC. The most troubling thing about it, as I see it, is the way that the subject is taking an attitude of being superior to it by saying that he won't answer it as long as it is in progress. It does illustrate the ambiguity of the "single issue" threshold. I also find it bizarre that he wants the RfC partly deleted and partly retained. Robert McClenon 11:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who's Rv

Thanks for the rv, guess they were trying to hail a cab with that thing :) ∞Who?¿? 19:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] State terrorism

please revisit you additions to State terrorism Revision as of 01:03, 9 September 2005 References - added Syrian references. Your previous edit to Syria add inline references. If any of these additional references are used in the text can you please add them as footnotes. If not would it be possible to remove any that have the information replicated in the footnotes. If this is done is there any need for additional references over and above the footnotes? Philip Baird Shearer 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blog

Hi, Slim. Yes, I saw it's gone. Thanks for your help. Nice of you to be so concerned. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim article

Hey SV. Khakhan (talk · contribs) is vandalizing the Muslim article. See edit history. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Man I wish I had blocking powers. ;) Thanks as always, a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another one

Hello again SV. 69.239.59.185 (talk · contribs) keeps adding links to fundamentalist christian sites on the Jesus and Isa articles without explanation. He/she has been reverted several times on both articles. Thanks again, a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

69.239.59.185 (talk · contribs) has now taken up a new name Chaplain (talk · contribs). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

My name's Aaron. I am a 15 year old, white male from, Ohio (US). My goal is to meet people and make friends on WP. What's your ASL? Can we talk? C2 aaron 13:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of Venona documents

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the text written on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--Cberlet 13:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute at Surat Shabd Yoga article

If you would be so kind, please take a look at - and make any needed edits to - the Surat Shabd Yoga article to help improve it and ensure it reflects NPOV. Thanks, — RDF talk 20:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultramarine

Ultramarine's defense at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence may be intended to suggest that you, 172, and I are all conspiring against the Truth. If you want to comment, feel free. Septentrionalis 23:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

What is your asl? Are you from the US?

If so, what state? Thanks. C2 aaron 12:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb against Zephram Stark

I've requested arbitration against Zephram Stark. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 19:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Hi SV. 70.18.171.34 (talk · contribs) is inserting pro-christian POV/vandalism to the Islam article. He/she has been reverted 4 times now. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Check your email. Btw, you have the correct version protected. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knee-jerk reverts result in crap

Read this sentence, which you reverted to, and please explain what it means:

"For nineteen years that followed the end of the Mandate until the 1967 Six Day War, Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied the West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem but no Palestinian state was created there."

It seems to me that there was no such thing as "annexed East Jerusalem" prior to 1967 -- are you and Jayjg just rewriting history again? Or did you think it means that Jordan occupied the West Bank but separately annexed East Jerusalem? Why would anyone write anything so ridiculous, though, when the only "annexing" Jordan ever did was to "annex" the entire West Bank, albeit barely anyone else recognized it.

Please stop making an ass of yourself, Slim.

Marsden 00:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Please review and adhere to WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:NOT, and WP:WQT. Thanks. El_C 01:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your user talk page needs less Image:Cowbell2.gif

You have the image Image:Cowbell2.gif on your user talk archive page at /archive11; this image is copyrighted and used in the Will Ferrell article under Wikipedia:Fair use. The use on your user talk page of that image is unlikely to be covered by use however, and as such is probably a Copyright violation. Could you remove the image from your user talk archive page? Thanks. --fvw* 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The same concern also applies to several other fair use images on our user page. Dragons flight 10:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)